Contents
The President's Corner
Form a Philalethes Chapter
Two Men Who Went
Over The Mountains
Control Is Important
HERE AND HERE-AFTER
Freemasonry and
American Culture, 1880 - 1930
Books of Interest to Masons
The Installation Ceremony
Notes on Hindoo Theology
Through Masonic Windows
Jerry Marsengill, FPS Editor
2714 Park Place
Des Moines, IA 50312 (515) 244-2540
Alphonse Cerza, FPS, Life, Assoc. Editor
237 Millbridge Road
Riverside, IL 60546
John Black Vrooman, FPS, Life
P.O. Box 402 Editor Emeritus
St. Louis, MO 63166
OFFICERS
Allen E. Roberts, FPS, President
Drawer 70, 1-A South Holly Ave
Highland Springs, VA 23075 (804) 737-4498
John R. Nocas, FPS, 1st Vice President
P O. Box 2366
Inglewood, CA 90305 (213) 678-2594
Jerry Marsengill, FPS, 2nd Vice President
2714 Park Place
Des Moines, IA 50312 (515) 244-2540
S. Brent Morris FPS Executive Secretary
5088 Lake Circle West
Columbia, MD 21044 (301) 992-9431
John Mauk Hilliard, FPS Treasurer
30 - 70 48th St. Apt. 3-G
Astoria, New York 11103 (212) 274-5295
LIVING PAST PRESIDENTS
Philalethes Society
Lee E. Wells
Alphonse Cerza, FPS
Judge Robert H. Gollmar, FPS
William R. Denslow, FPS
Robert V. Osborne, FPS
Eugene S Hopp, FPS
Dwight L Smith, FPS
Robert L Dillard Jr., FPS
Bruce H. Hunt, FPS
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EMERITUS
Carl R. Griesen, FPS
TREASURER EMERITUS
Ronald E. Heaton, FPS
CONTENTS
The President's Corner
Form a Philalethes Chapter
Annual Assembly and Feast
Two Men Who Went Over The Mountains
Control Is Important - Part Six of a Series
Here and Here-After
Immortality of the Soul as a Masonic Doctrine
Freemasonry and American Culture 1880-1930
Al Cerza Reviews
Books of Interest to Masons
The Installation Ceremony
Notes on Hindoo Theology
Through Masonic Windows
On the Cover
The cover artwork is from the Macoy Masonic Print Collection, courtesy of the Macoy Masonic Supply Co., Inc. The print collection consists of 26 different pictures on 16 permalife sheets and is available for $25.00 plus $3.50 postage. A copy of this cover alone (without overprinting) is available for $5.50 including postage. Send your orders to P. O. Box 9759, Richmond, VA 23228.
----o----
by Allen E. Roberts FPS
It's encouraging to be able to report our membership has increased considerably during 1984. It's good to note the activity of the Chartered Chapters that have accepted the "grandfather" clause. And I'm happy to report new chapters will be receiving Charters during the Feast and Assembly on February 8, 1985.
Plans for the Feast and Assembly have been completed. Many have already taken advantage of the reduced price of $20 for preregistration. The last one was a complete "sell out." Several, unfortunately couldn't be admitted because of the lack of space. Don't let this happen to you.
Donald H. Smith, the 1985 Lecturer, will bring us some refreshing challenges. He is a dynamic and knowledgeable speaker. You won't want to miss him.
We are still looking for feedback. We want to know how to make your Society more viable. We want to make it a valuable servant for Freemasons and Freemasonry. You can help us by passing along your ideas. And now is the time to do it. Your Executive Board will be meeting in February. I promise you it will consider any proposals you send along.
See you in February
----o----
"ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS - GOOD FOR THE MASONIC SOUL"
by John R. Nocas, FPS, First Vice-President
Missing from the Masonic scene in the twentieth century is what made Masonry so popular with its members in the beginning - back to 1717 serious and also light-hearted discussions around the dinner table.
This was the heart of Masonry! After a sumptuous dinner in a London ale house (perhaps the Goose and Gridiron near St. Paul's cathedral) the brethren would settle back comfortably and the discussion would range from the seven liberal arts and sciences to philosophy and a host of Masonic subjects. These were times of great mental stimulation and satisfaction in the Search for Truth, "the great object of Masonic study." These were the moments, too, when the Mystic Tie bound Masons together in Fellowship and Brotherly Love. ..
We miss this today! Business meetings and degree conferrals leave too little time for Masonic fellowship. What is the answer?
A Philalethes Chapter can provide a forum where the brethren and new Masons (very important) can get together in a relaxed atmosphere to get to know each other better and discuss our beloved Fraternity. Through discussion comes a better understanding and knowledge of our Craft. This can only promote Masonry!
Chapter meetings are usually held in restaurants, often in different ones for variety of food and change of location. Quarterly meetings are popular and ladies can be invited on occasion.
Its easy to form a Chapter. Drop a line to our President. He will send you the information. This will be giant step forward for Masonry in your area!
----o----
Annual Feast and Assembly
Donald H. Smith, MPS, will be the Guest lecturer for the Annual Feast and Assembly of The Philalethes Society. It will be held in the Hotel Washington, Friday, February 8, 1985, at 6:00 p.m. (please note the time).
Brother Smith impressed the President of the Society when he spoke at the Annual Banquet of the Grand Council of the Allied Masonic Degrees. "It was a wonderful experience," said the President, "to find a high ranking officer of an appendant body extolling the virtues of Masonic education."
Brother Smith is the Deputy Grand Master of the Grand Encampment of Knights Templar. He is an educator by profession serving as Registrar of Eastern Kentucky University, from which he graduated with honors. He did this after serving in the U.S. Army from shortly after Pearl Harbor to 1964. He was a Lieutenant Colonel when he retired.
Smith became a Master Mason in Georgia, then moved his membership to Richmond Lodge No. 25 in Kentucky. He served as its Master in 1977. Don is a Past High Priest. Past Illustrious Master, and Past Grand Commander. Brother Smith has served on the Educational Foundation of the Grand Encampment. He is a member of just about every body connected with Freemasonry.
Tickets for admission to the Feast and Assembly will be required. You may reserve your ticket by sending your check for $20 to William E. Copenhaver, MPS, Box 343, Stephens City. VA 22655. Tickets will be on sale as long as available in the lobby of the Hotel Washington during the afternoon of February 8. The cost will then be $22.50.
The business of the Society will take place during the Assembly. The award of the Certificate of Literature will be made. Charters will be issued for new Chapters. There will be some surprises. Don't miss this opportunity to meet around the festive board as our ancient Brethren did.
----o----
Two Men Who Went Over The Mountains
by James R. Beeler, MPS
For quite some time now, I have been engaged in tracing my family back through the ages. My quest was to learn more about those who had gone before me. My desire was for more light; more understanding of how these people lived and what they thought and felt as they struggled for survival. This paper is a brief look at two such individuals and perhaps will stimulate some of you to look back at your ancestors.
I shall begin with a brief review of colonial life prior to the Revolution. Prior to 1760 most of the colonists lived along the eastern sea coast; with few persons living west of the Allegheny divide. Intercourse between the colonies was very limited and there was no centralized seat of government. Instead, each of the colonies had its own governing body who answered to, and carried out, the dictates of the crown.
The French and Indian Wars had been contested for many years in the lands west of the Allegheny divide but in 1763 the British victory over the French brought an element of peace to the colonies. Prior to 1763 the American colonists were frequently irrated by the royal government of England, and there were strong objections to some of the practices expounded by King George III, but there was no deep-seated dissatisfaction with being a part of the British Empire nor was there any disloyalty to the Crown in principle.
However, the Proclamation of 1763, which limited colonization to the territory east of the Allegheny divide, was followed by the Sugar Act of 1764, the Currency Act of 1764, and these in turn were followed by the Stamp Act and the Quartering Act; thus the seeds of discontent were sown, soon to blossom into revolution and the birth of a new nation.
With this background let us look at one Colonial family, which I dare say none of you have previously read or heard anything about.
Christopher Beeler, appears to have come to this country prior to 1737, although the exact date is not known. We do know that he lived for a time at Ephrata in Pennsylvania. This community, located some fifty miles Northwest of Philadelphia, was the gathering place of the followers of the Sabbatarian faith, better known as the German Seventh Day Baptist, or Dunkards. (1)
Like other German sectarians of his day, Christopher Beeler emerges from available records as a man of remarkable enterprise, acquiring during his lifetime, vast land holdings in Virginia including a large townhouse in Alexandria. (2) In June of 1740 Christopher and his three children, Joseph, Frederick and Catherine moved from Pennsylvania to Frederick County, Virginia; where Christopher had acquired one hundred and thirty nine acres of land between Opequon Creek and the Shenandoah River. (3) He built his home on Longmarsh Run, about halfway between the Bullskin and the present site of Berryville, Virginia. Three years later he bought an additional five hundred acres on the west side of the Shenandoah. (4) This area, near Winchester, Virginia, soon became a hub of activity as the staging point for the military operations against the French and Indians on the western front. It was here that Christopher chose to raise his family adding three more children; Mary, Benjamin Franklin Beeler and Samuel Washington Beeler. It was here also that George Washington returned after his defeat at Fort Necessity, serving as Captain of the militia for the area, and later was elected to the Virginia House of Burgess from this area.
In March of 1752 Christopher Beeler obtained a patent for three hundred eighty-seven and a half acres on the present site of Keyser, West Virginia, where he built his new home which he called "New Creek." He and the younger children appear to have lived there until sometime in 1756 when, because of Indian attacks, he was forced to return to his plantation home near Berryville, Virginia. While there, his second wife became ill and Christopher and his wife made the difficult trip from Virginia to Ephrata, in Pennsylvania, for medical treatment. His wife died there in March of 1758, becoming the second wife to have died at Ephrata. (6) He soon took his third wife and returned to New Creek, where he remained until his death in 1774.
Joseph Beeler, the eldest son of Christopher Beeler, took over the large plantation near Berryville, Virginia, when Christopher Beeler moved his family to New Creek in 1752. The records show that Joseph Beeler served as a wagon master in General Forbes Campaign and as a Captain in Col. Bouquet's Campaign during the French and Indian Wars. (9)
To date, little is known about the early life of Dorsey Pentecost, except that he was from Virginia. He was a director of the Ohio Land Company and in that capacity he was very active in land transactions. He married Catherine Beeler, but to date we have not been able to determine who's child this Catherine was. Although Christopher Beeler did have a daughter named Catherine, she died, unmarried, at Ephrata, about the same time Christopher's second wife died. Catherine Beeler Pentecost may have been an adopted child of Christopher because his second wife had several children from a prior marriage at the time she married Christopher.
We do know, however, that Dorsey Pentecost and Joseph Beeler soon became brother masons. The original minute book of Winchester Lodge No. 12, the First Lodge in the Shenandoah Valley, shows that on December 27, 1768;
"Lodge held tonight at John Sexton's. James Dowdall, Master in the Chair; Brother James Lindsay, Senior Warden; Samuel Dobie, Junior Warden and Brother Peter Helphinstine, member. Agreed in Open Lodge that the same officers shall act till next St. John the Evangelist, except in case of misconduct and the Lodge to be held at John Sexton's as long as it proved agreeable to the Body then assembled or any part should hereafter join us.
Captain Joseph Beeler and Mr. Dorsey Pentecost proposed themselves to be balloted for on next Lodge night. Lodge was closed till the 1st Tuesday in January; extra Lodges excepted."
On January 3, 1769, these first two petitioners (Joseph Beeler and Dorsey Pentecost) were balloted for and unanimously admitted and were entered past and raised to the Degrees of Master Masons. (8)
In the same minute book, can be found a corrected list of the Brethren of the Lodge wherein "eight Brethren are noted as dead and two (Joseph Beeler and Dorsey Pentecost) as "gone over the mountains." (9)
Here we learn that Joseph Beeler and Dorsey Pentecost had left Winchester and had gone over the mountains. But over the mountains to where? The answer is found in the Pennsylvania Archives and the history of what is now Washington County, Pennsylvania. In 1769 this area was known as the District of West Augusta and was claimed by both Pennsylvania and Virginia. As the attached map indicates, the District of West Augusta included parts of present day Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
Before going on with the story of Joseph Beeler and Dorsey Pentecost I must regress to 1763, for as stated previously, this was an important year. Not only was this the year of the British Victory over the French but also in this year Lord Baltimore of Maryland, and the Penns of Pennsylvania, agreed in August, 1763, to have the dividing line between Pennsylvania and Maryland located and measured. (10)
The land grant to William Penn by England's King in 1681, was not only a puzzle to William Penn and his successors but to a lot of others as well. The portion of the description which concerns us here is as follows:
"All of that tract or part of land in America, ... as the same is bounded on the east by Delaware River, from twelve miles distant northwards of New Castle ... The said land to extend westwards five degrees in longitude to be computed from the said eastern bounds; and the said lands to be bounded on the ... south by a circle drawn at twelve miles distance from New Castle northwards unto the beginning of the fortieth degree of northern latitude, and then by a straight line westwards to the limit of longitude above mentioned." (11)
William Penn never knew where his western line was located, nor whether it was straight or crooked. His successors believed his western boundary line was as crooked as the Delaware River on the east. It is possible that they may have believed that the line extended to the Pacific Ocean, because at that time, the Pacific Ocean, or South Sea as it was known then, was supposed to be much closer to the Atlantic than it actually is.
To survey this line, two Englishmen were chosen, Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon. Upon their arrival they set to work but immediately encountered a problem. The original Penn grant called for a westward line at latitude 40d but Mason and Dixon chose a course at 39d, 43', 26" instead. One explanation of the change is that the 40d line would have left Philadelphia in Maryland.
At last, in June of 1765, Mason and Dixon started on their westward course by cutting a 24 foot right of-way along the course and setting boundary stones every mile. By fall, they had made it to a point 95 miles west of the Susquehanna River.
The crew began again in the spring of 1766 and by June they had arrived at the first chain of the Allegheny Mountains almost due south of Johnstown, Pennsylvania. The Indians had not yet granted the lands farther than the east side of the mountains and the great Indian Chief, Pontiac, refused to allow the line to go forward and issued his proclamation that "I shall stand in your path until morning." (12) Apparently an Indian day differed quite a bit from our days, because a whole year went by before, in June 1767, the work on the line was allowed to proceed. At a point near the Monongahela River, approximately 36 miles from the present western boundary point of Pennsylvania, work again came to a halt, when the Indian Nations decreed "Thus far shalt thou come but no further." So here the line stopped, not to be completed for another fifteen years. (13)
This delay in establishing the "Mason and Dixon Line" resulted in a great deal of uncertainty about the ownership of the area which now comprises Allegheny, Washington, Fayette and Green Countries, Pennsylvania. The Virginians were an aggressive people and when the British passed the Stamp Act in 1765, Benjamin Franklin and the Penns, saw no other course but submission. Virginia, on the other hand, formally denied the right of Parliament to meddle with internal taxation and demanded the repeal of the law. Patrick Henry stated "In my opinion this kingdom has no right to lay a tax on the colonies. America is obstinate! America is almost in open rebellion! Sir, I rejoice that America has resisted." (14) It was the Virginians who opposed the French aggressions along the rivers in Western Pennsylvania and opened the way to defeat the French. Pennsylvania's failure to protect those settlers living in the western areas from the ravages of the Indians gave Virginia the opening to extend its claim to this land.
It was to this land that Joseph Beeler and Dorsey Pentecost moved in 1769. It was during his service against the French that Joseph Beeler first came to learn about this land. Dorsey Pentecost, on the other hand, apparently acquired his knowledge of the territory from his friends, William Crawford, George Rogers Clark and Dr. John Connolly. These men from Virginia soon had their hands full in this wild and harsh land.
As stated previously the western part of Pennsylvania was part of the Virginia District of West Agasta, but on February 26, 1773, Pennsylvania established Westmoreland County, which at that time included all of Southwestern Pennsylvania, and thus were established two governmental claims over the same area. But the poor residents of the area had more worriers than to which colony they owed their allegiance. For this was also the land of the "Six Nations," and the Indians were a constant danger to the settlers.
Joseph Beeler soon became County Lieutenant for Westmoreland Counts;. The County Lieutenant was, in some degree, a Deputy Governor. He was military commandant, and if he took the field with the militia, he held the rank of Colonel. So here was Joseph Beeler, a Virginian, trying to protect his family and those of his friends from the Indians. I should point out that Joseph's brother, Samuel Washington Beeler had located his family on Raccoon Creek to the east of Joseph, who resided on Chartiers Creek, and the children of Joseph's deceased brother, Frederick, had located on Grave Creek, at the present site of Beeler's Station, West Virginia.
In 1774 Dunmore's War arose from the murder of several Indians. (15) Although the Indians frequently hunted with the whites and many lived in a friendly manner near the settlers, their lives were never safe. It appears that a group of men under the command of Captain Michael Cresap attacked and killed several Indians who were heading down the Ohio River near Wheelings West Virginia. It is not certain whether Captain Cresap was responsible for these murders but the result was a great uproar in the area and a mass evacuation by the whites to areas of safety to the East.
About the same time a petition signed by 587 inhabitants settled on the waters of the Ohio, was presented to Lord Dunmore, Governor of Virginia. The petition reads like one written by Dr. Connolly, assisted by Dorsey Pentecost. (16) "This Petition set forth that the majority of the petitioners formerly lived in Virginia and preferred the mild, easy, and equitable government thereof to the administration of justice in Pennsylvania, which they felt was oppressive to the poor and expensive to all, particularly in trying titles to lands and in the recovery of small debts, wherein the officer's fees were so disproportionate that they seemed rather calculated for enriching individuals than the public good.
Lord Dunmore saw this as his opportunity to extend the claims of Virginia, not only in the Western Pennsylvania area but also in the area of what is now, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. Under the leadership of George Rogers Clark, a campaign was begun against the Indians while, under the direction of Dr. Connolly and Dorsey Pentecost, who had been named as justices, Lord Dunmore set about strengthening the Virginia position. Both Connolly and Pentecost served as Captains in the militia under Colonel Joseph Beeler, with Captain Pentecost charged with furnishing all the militia on service with provisions. (17) Many historians believe that Lord Dunmore expected to bind the disaffected in this region to Virginia, to stir the Indians into war, then make a peace treaty by which means he would have control of the dissatisfied whites as well as the Indians, to use them in behalf of Great Britain in her expected war with the colonies.
Now a war of wits was begun in earnest between Lord Dunmore and the Virginians and the Penns. Dr. Connolly was incarcerated upon a warrant issued by Pennsylvania Justice Arthur St. Clair. The bond was fixed purposely so high that he would not get free to attend a meeting of the militia he had called for the following day. The imprisonment must have continued at least a week, because St. Clair wrote Governor Penn from Fort Ligonier on February 2, 1774, that "about eighty persons in arms assembled themselves, chiefly from Mr. Craghan's neighborhood, and after parading through the town..... proceeded to the fort, where a case of rum was produced and the head knocked out. This was a very effective method of recruiting." (18) The letter does not state why or when Connolly was liberated, but he soon appeared in Virginia where he was hailed as a martyr. He soon returned to Pittsburg where with the aid of the militia he soon took over Fort Ligonier, which he renamed Fort Dunmore. Arrests and counter arrests and scuffles followed rapidly and the letters of St. Clair to Governor Penn admit that a considerable part of his time was spent in concealment to avoid difficulties.
The brief war with the Indians, which was opposed by Pennsylvania, resulted in a decisive battle, October 10, 1774, near the mouth of the Kanawha in West Virginia, when about 800 Shawanese, Delawares, Mingoes, Iaways and others, led by Chiefs Cornstalk and Logan, were defeated by about 1,000 Virginia troops led by Col. Lewis. By the peace treaty that followed, the Indians were to give up all prisoners and horses stolen since the War of 1763, no Indian was to hunt on the east side of the Ohio and no white on the west side, and the Shawanese delivered up four of their chief men as hostages, to be changed yearly. (19) The Indian threats were checked for a season, but soon were stirred to action by another enemy.
The War with England soon consumed the energies of the settlers of Western Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania 8th Regiment, whose members included Lt. James Beeler, Jr. were drafted from this area and were soon sent to do battle with Anthony Wayne in the east. Dr. Connolly had been forced out of Pennsylvania, having been branded as a "tory," to disappear forever from the "Boundary Controversy." Dorsey Pentecost, on the other hand, had been named as clerk for the courts in 1775 and continued to have a great deal of influence in the area, especially in the administration of the judicial system. Joseph Beeler continued to serve in the capacity of Col. of the militia under the command of Col. Daniel Brodhead.
The Declaration of Independence did not make a noticable change in the government of affairs in the Western Pennsylvania region. Pennsylvania claimed control of her unknown western line through the justices of the peace of Westmoreland County, but these were inactive or gone to war. Any militia system she had was not effective west of the Monongahela River. As stated previously, Virginia claimed all the land from the Allegheny Mountains far into the West. The District of West Augusta embraced everything as far as the Ohio River and Virginia had established courts, a good military system covering this district, and had Fort Pitt garrisoned by Captain John Neville and his Virginia company, which had been brought up from the Shenandoah Valley.
But don't believe for a minute that life was easy for the people of this area because the area was soon without men, money, ammunition, or guns for protection. The men who had gone to war in the East, had taken nearly all the best guns. Powder was not to be had in the area, so a small band of men, led by Captain George Gibson, was sent to New Orleans to buy powder at fifteen cents a pound from the Spanish. (20)
On December 13, 1776, Patrick Henry, governor of Virginia wrote to Dorsey Pentecost saying "I wish you would find out where Captain Gibson's cargo of powder is and let me know." He called attention to the dangerous condition of the settlements of West Augusta and advised the settlers to prepare for defense against the Indians. (21)
Although no major battles were fought against the British in this particular part of Western Pennsylvania, the war was extremely difficult on the settlers of the area. The warning issued by Patrick Henry soon became a reality. The British soon enlisted the services of the Indians to bring war against the settlers.
For those who may be interested in the day to day life of these frontier militia soldiers I direct you to The Draper Manuscripts, which have been assembled by the Wisconsin Historical Society, and edited by Louise Phelps Kellogg, in several volumes available in most large libraries. The Draper Manuscripts paint a vivid picture of the daily dangers and difficulties these men faced and the names of Colonel James Beeler, and his sons Lt. Joseph Beeler, Jr., are found throughout these pages.
The following excerpts from the "History of the Panhandle of West Virginia" gives insight to the difficulties of Col. Joseph Beeler.
"During the summer of 1780, it is said that Colonel Beeler became discouraged, and I presume it was no wonder; for where is the man of this day and date who could have faced what Col. Beeler did, and live?
New obstacles were constantly being conceived and brought into existence day after day to barricade his pathway, to frustrate and hinder him from accomplishing the great designs he had undertaken.
His enemies were so numerous, and they were so terribly disfigured with evil design, that the lives of Colonel Beeler and his family were constantly endangered whenever they went outside of the fort. Under these terrible circumstances, for Colonel Beeler to establish a colony in this neighborhood presupposed to him the idea that he must have additional aid.
Accordingly, in the dead of winter, 1780, he, accompanied by Tomlinson, of the fort at Moundsville, and Ryerson, of Ryerson's Station, walked through the deep snow, in the dead of winter, over the mountains of Pennsylvania to the city of Philadelphia. He there laid in a complaint to the chief officers of that state regarding his sad situation in the wilds of Virginia." (22)
The following letter written by Col. Beeler to Col. Daniel Brodhead on October 10, 1780, prior to his trip to Philadelphia, gives additional insight to Joseph Beeler.
October 10th, 1780
Dear Sir,
I received yours of the 7th Inst. this morning, but it is not in my power to give you a just return as you request until the last of this week, for I have been obliged to issue orders to press horses & draught men, as I could not get Volunteers enough, of which I have not got a return as yet. I am sorry to inform you that I am afraid we shall come but little speed. I find that the Government of Virginia will not protect me in any thing I do by virtue of the laws of Virginia since their last Resolution, & the laws of Pennsylvania have not as yet taken us under their protection; all this the Country is acquainted with, so that everything I do is at the Risque of my Fortune unless protected by the States. If it had not been to forward an Expedition I should have declined acting a good while ago, as no man ever had a more disagreeable time of it than I have at present, having no law to defend me. We are assured of your good intentions for the safety of the Countrey, & are very sorry that we cannot act with that spirit that we ought to do. But hope the laws of Pennsylvania will either be extended in a few Days from this time, or the Laws of Virginia be kept in force. It is very unhappy for this Countrey that the two contending States has not provided a better way for the defence of this Countrey than to let it fall between them both until matters are settled between them.
I have the honor to be with the greatest Respect, Dear Sir, your most obe.d' Hble serv'
JOSEPH BEELER, Col.
without Law to protect me." (23)
Dorsey Pentecost was also very active during this period of time. He had been elected a justice of the West Augusta Courts and became clerk of courts. He also took over as county lieutenant and was elected president officer of the council of war. (24)
In 1781 Pennsylvania finally took steps to establish a judicial system of its own in the area of Old West Augusta. On March 28, 1781 Washington County was formed and James Marshall was appointed County lieutenant, recorder and registrar by the Pennsylvania Assembly, Marshall's arrival was not welcomed by all in Washington County, especially by Dorsey Pentecost and General George Rogers Clark.
Upon returning from his victory over the British in Illinois General Clark sought to draft men from the Washington County area for a campaign against the Indians and the British. Governor, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, had furnished General Clark with money and about 140 Virginia regulars with the hope that he would be able to proceed against the British at Detroit. To obtain the men necessary for his expedition. General Clark turned to his friend Dorsey Pentecost. However, both men soon were opposed by Mr. Marshall who saw them as "ringleaders of sedition". (25) Marshall believed that Gen. Clark and Dorsey Pentecost wanted to extend the influence and enlarge the territory of Virginia. Clark and Pentecost steadfastly maintained that they wanted to win the war with the British. From the numerous letters written to President Reed of Pennsylvania, by Marshall, Clark, Pentecost and others it is obvious that civil war was a very real possibility in Washington County. Many persons were calling for the formation of an independent state in the western area of Pennsylvania. Who could have blamed these brave soles for being so upset with the way things had been going for so many years. The heavy taxes of the British had brought about the Revolutionary War but these poor people were then taxed, even more, by Pennsylvania and also by Virginia. Because both states claimed the area titles to land were constantly at issue because patents were issued by both Pennsylvania and Virginia and often for the same land. Even George Washington had to go to court to perfect title to his lands in the area. Also, the majority of the able bodied men were enlisted to fight the British in the East, while those who remained were left practically unarmed to defend themselves against the almost constant Indian attacks. Why shouldn't these people demand a state of their own, or perhaps even a separate country where they would at least have a voice in the government of their affairs?
This difficult situation was not brought to an end until the fall elections of 1781. (26) Dorsey Pentecost was elected the Counsillor of Washington County to the Pennsylvania Executive Committee and on November 19, 1781 he appeared in Philadelphia and took the oath of allegiance and oath of office required by the Pennsylvania Constitution. (27) He then took his seat on the Executive Committee and while serving in this capacity, Dorsey Pentecost voted for the completion of the "Mason and Dixon Line". The line was finally completed in 1782 and although all was not peace and harmony, life in Western Pennsylvania became much more settled. Finally the settlers of the area knew for certain to which State they actually owed their allegiance.
At the end of 1783, Dorsey Pentecost resigned his seat on the Executive Committee to accept appointment as Judge of the Common Pleas Court of Washington County. (28) He continued to serve with distinction in this capacity until after the end of the hostilities with the British and the Indians.
The settlement of Western Pennsylvania was perhaps as important to the development of this nation as were the settlements at Plymouth and Jamestown. This was the area that a sixteen year old George Washington was employed by Lord Fairfax to survey in the late 1740's. A few years later, in this same area, George Washington suffered defeat at the hands of the French and Indians at Fort Necessity. Later still, Washington accompanied General Braddock on his ill fated march against the French and Indians at Fort Dequesene. But, in each of these defeats George Washington learned great lessons in military tactics which became the foundation for the defeat of the British during the Revolutionary War.
In 1778, a young George Rogers Clark gathered a group of Indian fighters from this area and led them to Illinois to defeat the British at Kaskaskia, Cahokia and Vincennes. This established this Nation's claim to the vast Northwest Territory, over which, Arthur St. Clair later presided as governor.
From the head waters of the Ohio valley, future settlers had access, by water, to the lands to the West, and after the ending of the hostilities against the British and Indians, large numbers of settlers from Western Pennsylvania moved west to Kentucky and Tennessee. Yes, we here in Texas know full well the importance of the people of Kentucky and Tennessee to the settlement of this State. The roll call of those who served at the battle of San Jacinto contains the name of George Pentecost and a lot of others whose roots can be traced to Penn Sylvania. (29) Those men who settled in Western Pennsylvania in the late 1700's moved on to settle Kentucky and Tennessee and later still their children moved on to a new frontier called Texas.
Although the first masonic lodge was not chartered in Washington County, Pennsylvania until 1792, most certainly the masons of the area held meetings during the Revolutionary War and most certainly Joseph Beeler, Dorsey Pentecost and George Rogers Clark participated in these meetings. (30) These men risked their lives and their fortunes because they choose to stand and fight for what they believed was right. Both Joseph Beeler and Dorsey Pentecost died in Washington County, Pennsylvania between 1802 and 1806, but the current residents of Washington County, know little or nothing of the difficulties indured by these two men. These men who went "over the mountains" took with them the teachings of the craft and applied these teachings to their daily lives. Although Joseph and Dorsey have long ago past to that land where each of us must one day venture, they left their mark and the world was made better because of their efforts.
The Generations From Christopher Beeler
1. Christopher Beeler
2. Joseph Beeler
3. Joseph Beeler, Jr.
4. Henry Noble Beeler
5. Samuel Beeler
6. Samuel S. Beeler
7. Cary E. Beeler
8. Rowland L. Beeler
9. George C. Bowler
10. James R. and Jack E. Beeler
Notes and Bibliography
1. For an interesting look at life at Ephrata see, Ephrata, A History edited by James E. Ernest, "The Pennsylvania German Folklore Society": Schlechter's - Allentown, Pennsylvania, 1961.
2. Klaus Wust. The Saint - Adventurers of The Virginia Frontier, Shenandoah History, Edinburg, Virginia, 1977, p. 82
3. Frederick County, Virginia Deed Book, Volume IV, Pages 327-331.
4. Frederick County, Virginia Deed Book, Volume 1, Pages 1-4.
5. Hampshire County, Virginia Deed Book, Volume XV, Page 295.
6. Klaus Wust p. 83.
7. Richard W. Loveless, Records of the District of West Augusta, Ohio County, and Yohajania County, Virginia, Ohio State University Printing Dept., Columbus, Ohio. 1979, Volume III, p. 56.
8. William Moseley Brown, Freemasonry In Winchester, Virginia 1768-1948, McClure Printing Co., Staunton, Virginia, 1949, p. 23.
9. William Mosely Brown p. 21.
10. Joseph F. McFarland, 20th Century History of the Cites of Washington and Washington County Pennsylvania, Richmond Arnold Publishing Co., Chicago, Illinois, 1910, p. 44.
11. Ibid., p. 44.
12. Ibid., P. 45.
13. Ibid., p. 45.
14. Ibid., p. 48.
15. Reuben Gold Thwaites and Louise Phelps Kellogg, Documentary History of Dunmore's War, C.J. Carrier Company, Harrisonburg, Virginia, 1974, p. 101.
16. Joseph F. McFarland, p. 60.
17. Thwaites and Kellogg, p. 101.
18. Joseph F. McFarland, p. 59.
19. Ibid., p. 64.
20. Ibid., p. 74.
21. Ibid., p. 74.
22. J.H. Newton. G.G. Nichols, and A.G. Sprankle. History of the Pan-Handle of West Virginia, J.A. Caldwell, Wheeling. West Virginia, 1879. p. 364.
23. Pennsylvania Archives. FlRST SERIES. Volume 8, p. 583
24. Richard W. Loveless. Volume 1, p. 525.
25. Joseph F. McFarland. p. 83.
26. Pennsylvania Archives, Colonial Records, Volume 13. p. 184.
27. Pennsylvania Archives, Colonial Records, Volume 13. p. 253.
28. Joseph F. McFarland, p. 86, and Pennsylvania Archives Colonial records, Volume 13, p. 732.
29. James David Carter, Masonery in Texas, The Grand Lodge of Texas, Waco, 1955, p. 283.
30. Boyd Crumrine, History of Washington County, Pennsylvania, L.H. Everts & Co., Philadelphia. 1882. P. 548.
----o----
by Allan E. Roberts, FPS
(PART SIX OF A SERIES OF SIX)
We can set meaningful goals. We can adopt good plans to reach these goals. We can even use that elusive ingredient called communication better than anyone else. But if we don't control what takes place each step of the way, we will have nothing.
Several have requested we set a goal of increased attendance and determine the plans to reach this goal. So, let me tell you the story of what one Lodge did. We'll call it "Boondock Lodge" for want of a better name (and to not publicize the one involved).
Boondock Lodge would celebrate its 150th anniversary in six months. How it had survived this long no one really knew. Since the memory of man it had needed the help of visitors to confer degrees. It never had a program for any meeting. If there was no degree work, the Lodge was opened, but never in "ancient form," the bills read, the minutes approved and the Lodge closed.
It can be safely claimed that the officers of Boondock Lodge had been collecting treasures - treasures in the attic of their minds. They were not about to throw away any of the old cliches. The old ways of doing things were too valuable to be discarded. It had taken time, money and effort to acquire them. Why do away with them and accept new-fangled ways of doing things?
A young upstart was elected Master for Boondock's 150th anniversary. He saw this as a golden opportunity to revitalise his Lodge. He decided to focus this rebirth around the anniversary. To do it he needed help. Not too surprisingly he found this help. He discovered there actually were a few members of his Lodge who had been looking for some leadership.
The Master appointed committees (Teams would have been much better) to find an excellent speaker, to plan a banquet, to clean up the building, and to advertise the event. He and his officers brought in a ritualist to teach them how to open and close the Lodge. He didn't want to be embarrassed before all the visitors he expected.
The goal was set: a massive anniversary celebration with at least 200 in attendance. The plans to reach this goal were determined. The banquet committee would plan the meal and arrange for at least two sittings (the dining room could hold about 100.) The publicity committee would advertise the event far and wide. The cleanup committee would scrub and paint. The officers would learn the ritual.
The committees did their job. The night of the big event arrived. One hundred ninety-eight Masons were present to hear a prominent Past Grand Master speak. At 10:45 p.m. the Master introduced him!
"My Brethren," said the Past Grand Master, "I drove almost 200 miles to be here this evening. I've spent over sixty hours working on my speech. Now I'm too tired to give it and you're too tired to listen. I'll just say you've had a glorious 150 years. I hope the next 150 will be just as glorious. Good night."
What went wrong? The committees evidently did their jobs. The goal was reached. The plans to attract a large attendance worked. Almost 200 showed up in a Lodge that normally had ten or less in attendance. The officers opened the lodge with a letter perfect rendition of the ritual. The meal was appetising. Why the catastrophe?
There was no control. There was no central authority coordinating every step of the way. The Master had made certain the ritual would be perfect. He forgot there is much more to running a Lodge than the ritual. He had appointed committees but failed to check what they were doing. Each committee worked without knowing what the others were doing. There were no joint meetings of these important workers.
The time set for the banquet didn't allow enough time for two sittings and still start the meeting at the appointed hour. Two hundred men was the goal set. There wasn't enough food for 150. The stewards had to run to the local chicken food restaurant for boxed dinners for the balance. This delayed the meeting even more and got the evening off to a poor start.
The Master rapped his gavel more than an hour late. After he had opened the Lodge he went through the whole gambit - reading minutes of previous meetings, reading and balloting on petitions, introducing every visitor regardless of his rank, and even insisting each "say a few words." Some, as always, had more than a few words to say.
Not many men have the courage of that Past Grand Master. Most will take whatever is handed out and still try to make the leadership look good. Or, perhaps, they are in love with the sound of their voice and will speak every chance they get and under any circumstances.
Again, let's look at the principles of leadership. We must first establish goals or we'll merely go around in circles accomplishing nothing. BUT all goals must be selected by the people involved. Always remember, your goals may or may not be important to others. Goals set through the participation of those concerned become their goals, also.
Then there must be plans developed to reach the goals. And control factors must be determined immediately. With control comes measuring factors. Goals and plans can never remain static. As we move toward the achievement of the goals, plans. and even the goals themselves. may have to be modified. Everyone involved must be kept fully informed and up-to-date concerning needed changes. The coordinator (controller) will make certain they are.
You can plan the best program in the world, but if no one knows about it they won't be participating. Meaningful communication is again important. This should follow the formula reporters have been using for years: what, when, why, and who. It's better to tell 'em more than they need to know than not enough. The facts must be accurate. Communication must be controlled.
The Teams (or committees, ugh!) should have the best men available. It's always good to have men of varying experience on these Teams. They will compliment each other. You should organise and staff your small groups for the benefit of the Lodge as a whole.
Long ago I stopped asking for a vote on any subject. I found a majority is one more than 50%. A majority decision can prove disastrous. It's much, much better to get a consensus of opinion. And work at it until a consensus achieved. Then you can't go wrong.
Most important: control, coordinate, measure the results each step of the way. Don't leave anything to chance. Assign responsibilities and authority. Remember that everyone's responsibility becomes no one's. Don't assume - know.
Passing this short series along to you has been good for me. It has made me think. I have been getting in a rut because much of my work is done by me alone. But I had to stop "preaching" and put some of these "words of wisdom'' into practice recently. I find they still work. I find they do take the hassle out of leadership. I hope you will find they will do the same for you.
As with all things, an end must be reached. It has been said we never complete a story or an article - we have to abandon it. This is the case here. The tales of lousy leadership could go on forever. The possible solutions can be examined even longer. If I have caused you to consider this vital subject, my job has been a success. If you start reading books and articles on leadership and management, my reward will surpass all expectations.
Good luck. Good leadership.
----o----
Immortality of the Soul as a Masonic Doctrine
by L.L. Walker, MPS
A belief in the immortality of the soul as a condition precedent to being made a Mason is a principle having general if not universal acceptance by all the bodies claiming jurisdiction over the world of Masonry. It is so widely demanded, either by law or by custom, that it may well be regarded as a fundamental principle of Freemasonry and an integral part of Masonic doctrine.
This belief in the immortality of the soul has been claimed by a great number of writers as being one of the "landmarks of Freemasonry." Whether it is or not depends upon what construction one gives to the term. We are not here concerned with an enumeration of the Landmarks, and only in passing are we concerned with the validity of those practices and principles which have been so designated. What is important is to know that the belief in the immortality of the soul has long loomed sufficiently large in the field of Masonic studies as to cause some writers to give it a place in the select circle of "Landmarks."
Masonically, when the immortality of the soul is spoken of, it is as the second term in the phrase. "A belief in the existence of a Supreme Being, and the immortality of the soul." This would seem to be a quite proper conjuncture, for the possibility of an immortal soul would seem to depend wholly upon the certitude of the existence of a Supreme Being. The object of this paper, however, is to separate the idea of the immortality of the soul from any enumeration of "Landmarks," and to examine the term in such way as to determine what Freemasonry means be its use. There are thus two primary questions to be addressed. First, what do we mean by the immortality of the soul: and, second, why does Masonry consider the avowal of the principle an essential, and even a prerequisites to becoming a Mason?
We may begin with a fact of life for which there is full and ever present proof: Mortal man is born to die. God has created man in His own image and has invested him with marvelous talents and abilities, but God has withheld from man His own attribute of eternity. It would thus be possible for God to create generations of men, one after another, permit each generation to live some allotted span, and then extinguish it like a snuffed-out candle.
But to do this, to create man for time only and without hope beyond, would be wholly contrary to what man perceives to be the nature of his Creator. Man for the most part seems to hold to the belief that what God reigns, life must dominate. Since it is abundantly clear that man's span here on earth is finite, it follows that if life is to continue it must somehow and in some form continue in the here-after. Likewise, since the body remains for the disposition of the living, it also follows that it must be some other part of man, which leaving the mortal frame at the moment which we call death, goes on to some state of existence no less eternal than that of the God who created it. This part of man, the soul, we must conclude, is immortal.
It must be conceded that not all men in all times have accepted this reasoning, and have thus explicitly denied the immortality of the soul. Doubtlessly, some of the same men, while denying the immortality of the soul, have supposed themselves to believe in the existence of God, or a Supreme Being by whatever denomination. If one reasons so, such reasoning is specious, for one cannot reasonably affirm the supremacy and the eternal nature of God and at the same time deny the immortality of the souls He has created. To do so is to posit a God whose power over His own creation is subject to limitations imposed by the created.
Conversely one cannot subscribe to a belief in the immortality of the soul and not believe in an eternal and all-powerful God, for to do so would be analogous to stating a conclusion without a logical premise. The validity of a belief in the immortality of the soul is dependent upon the antecedently supposed and proved proposition that there exists a God of such character as both to create and endow His creation with a soul possessed of a measure of His own eternal nature.
It is evident that one cannot contemplate the immortality of the soul without first having accepted the fact of death, its inevitability and its finality, and it is this contemplation which mankind finds most difficult. Most people would rather go on living indefinitely, free of the prospect of death, but only the irrational seriously consider this to be a possibility Death, it is generally concluded, is inevitable, and, so far as mortal life is concerned, final. The allegory of the Third Degree is Masonry's device for dramatically communicating this as truth. Further, that allegory makes clear that man does not fix the time of his death, but that the moment comes when he least expects it.
A belief in immortality is not universally held, nor, it must be supposed, universally desired. There are those who profess to believe that "when you're dead, you're dead." One may well doubt the depth of understanding of such a person, for such a person may flinch from the unthinkable alternative to immortality which is total annihilation.
Masonry offers no doctrinal teaching or commentary as to the nature of death. Its view seems to be essentially the elementary one of death as the separation of body and soul, and as such echoes the thought of Plato. In the Phaedo, Plato has Socrates say to Simmias: "And is this (death) anything but the separation of soul and body? And being dead is the attainment of this separation; when the soul exists in herself, and is parted from the body and the body is parted from the soul - that is death?" To which Simmias responds: "Exactly; that and nothings else." (1)
Albert Pike, whose work endeavors to state Masonry in something like philosophical terms, defines death very much in Platonic terms: "And everywhere in the Universe, what we call Life and Movement results from a continual conflict with Forces and Impulses. Whenever the active antagonism ceases, the immobility and the inertia, which are Death, result." (2) Despite his characteristically elaborate metaphysical language, Pike simply sees death, as did Plato, as the separation of the two parts of man, the body and the soul.
Ordinarily, Masonic commentaries give to the events of the Third Degree a wholly existential interpretation. These lines from W.L. Wilmshurst seem typical:
"The temple of human nature is unfinished and we know not how to complete it. The want of plans and designs to regulate the disorders of individual and social life indicates to us all that some heavy calamity has befallen us as a race. The absence of a clear and guiding principle in the world’s life reminds us of the utter confusion into which the absence of that Supreme wisdom, which is personified as Hiram, has thrown us all, and causes every reflective mind to attribute to some fatal catastrophe his mysterious disappearance. We all long for that light and wisdom which have become lost to us. Like the craftsman in search of the body, we go our different ways in search of what is lost." (3)
The events may open to us lines of existential speculation, but we miss the real object of it all if we do not see them too as a prolegomonon to a consideration of death and immortality.
All that Masonry has to say about death and immortality is said in the Second Section of the Third Degree, and even there what is said is not said didactically. Like the first penciled lines of the artist who will than fill out the scene as his imagination moves his artistry so Masonry sketches through its little drama the barest outlines of a philosophy by which a man may be known as a Mason. Unhappily all too often the speeches of the drama are mouthed with no understanding of their meaning and are heard by the ears of men more concerned-in that moment with form than content. The truth is, however, that what the candidate hears here and what it is hoped he will understand is the very substance which requires of him the antecedent belief in the immortality of his soul.
In the untimely death of Hiram Abif, the protagonist of the Degree and the archetypical Mason, there is graphically depicted the inopportune intervention of death into the affairs of man. Whether or not the tree has come to fruition, whether or not all of life's tasks have been completed, there comes that unannounced moment which terminates mortal life. This much of the Third Degree would seem to be plain enough to even the most obtuse candidate. The drama could end here, having offered further testimony of the uncertainty of life and the inevitability of death.
But the drama proceeds. Perhaps some doctrine of the resurrection of the body is enunciated in what follows. If so, we shall not undertake to discover the nature of that doctrine. What is evident is that Hiram Abif, having died, has some experience at a time after death. This episode is not intended to serve in any way as rational proof of physical life after death, for significant words make clear that Hiram Abif does not stand in the flesh. As in Greek drama, so here; the dead stand and speak without being any less dead. It is not the person, but the immortal soul of the person who speaks. Thus, we have dramatized the indestructible nature of the soul. This is the essence of the Degree. This is what Masonry would have a man understand. This is why it is essentially necessary for one who would become a Mason to first hold a belief in the immortality of the soul. Should he not, then this vital part of the Master Mason's Degree is meaningless.
Notwithstanding its characteristic rationalism, when Masonry speaks of the immortality of the soul it does so in such manner as to make clear its belief that the fact of immortality does not have to rely on rational proofs. The immortality of the soul is for Masonry an axiom, a statement of self-evident truth, an established principle for which rational proof is neither possible nor necessary.
Just when this principle became a part of Masonic doctrine, perhaps it is not entirely possible to say. Since the ritualistic drama of Hiram Abif, which is one-half of the Master Mason's Degree, cannot be older than the Degree itself, we must date the indusion of this principle to the time when the Degree was first introduced into Masonic ritual. If this be true, then it raises an interesting point with respect to those who include among the Landmarks the belief in the immortality of the soul. A Landmark is usually defined as a principle or practice which has endured since time immemorial. That being an acceptable definition, and we being able to fix a time when the principle was introduced, it must be that belief in the immortality of the soul is not, by definition, a Landmark.
In what form Masons addressed the matter of death and immortality in the times before the introduction of the Third Degree, or whether they addressed the matter at all, we do not know. The earliest of the written records in our possession seem to say no more than was probably necessary to merit the good graces of the medieval Church, and to avoid any shadow of heresy.
Even though we cannot be sure who wrote the Third Degree and introduced the so-called "Hiramic Legend," it seems reasonable to suppose that the Degree was conceived and composed with the full intention of expanding the ritual so as to add to the existing simple system of ethics an equally simple eschatology. The telling of the Hiramic Legend is not the object of the Degree. It is but the vehicle of communication; a bit of dramaturgy. However brief it may be, the Second Section of the Degree has a plait, a plan preconceived by its author and springing from his conscious thought. There is a series of actions and an element of conflict, and the interplay of action and conflict leads to the denouement, which occurs when the once dead Hiram Abif stands and speaks.
All this does not unfold by chance, nor does the action take place merely to recreate the highly colored legend of a master craftsman. The dramatic unfolding of the legend is no more than a device by which to communicate an eschatology, a simplified doctrine of last things, which the 18th century ritualist must have conceived essential to the philosophical growth of Speculative Masonry.
The lesson of this little drama is simple enough: Life is transitory and it is not man’s prerogative to say when it will end, even though he may be the only man who can draw the lines upon the trestleboard. Masonry does not address itself to the question of whether man's seemingly inopportune death is by chance or by design, although it seems strongly to suggest that in the death of a man, "the will of God is accomplished."
It also seems to suggest that, if man cannot know the time of his departure, he can at least so live as to make his exit in good conscience. The legendary Hiram Abif, it will be recalled, has done all things well. He has communed with kings and walked with craftsmen. His life allegorizes the good and the pursuit of perfection. Yet, he will not willingly leave that life. "Behold, it is well nigh complete," he says of his Temple, this structure which we recognise as a metaphor for his own life - and ours. Even so, unfulfilled, life does end, but we are left to believe that he goes out of this world with virtue unimpaired.
As we have said? the story could end here, but it does not. Exactly what Masonry wishes us to understand about resurrection, if anything at all, is not clear, nor are the commentaries of Masonic scholars helpful. Certainly, it is true that Masonry does not insist that what one sees and experiences can be accepted as symbolic of personal resurrection. There is no catechistical definition, and how one interprets this experience seems dependent upon his theological orientation. What should be abundantly clear to any perceptive Mason is that man's end is not annihilation; that there lies beyond some other experience, however rationally inexplicable it may be.
Characteristically, Masonry makes no argument for immortality. It quotes no philosophers in "proof" of doctrine: it asserts nothing as dogma; it demands no conformity. It makes no case for the injustice of the premature death of a great and good man, a man at the peak of his creative powers. It does not speak of reunion if "the sweet by and by." Yet if Masonry states no conclusions and offers no answers in rational terms, it affirms that the soul of man lives on, hence is immortal.
We proposed in the beginning to ask two questions. First, what do we mean by the immortality of the soul? And second, why does Masonry require of a petitioner a belief in the immortality of the soul? It is time to give a specific answer to each question.
By the immortality of the soul we mean that there is a part of man which has the same divine origin as the body and all its members, and which exists in life coordinately with the body, but which at death remains incorruptible while the body knows the sure corruption of all physical things. Because this part of man, which we call the soul, is not an aspect of mortality and does not participate in the physical phenomenon of death, it is immortal.
Masonry, either explicitly or implicitly, requires of a petitioner a belief in this immortality of the soul. It does so because its portrayal of death does not end with a fatal blow, but looks beyond the here and now and sees the soul as continuing its identity in the here after. No man who cannot conceive of and admit to that possibility can unreservedly share in the esoteric experience or accept as a tenet of life this aspect of Masonic doctrine. If man believes in the eternal God as the creator of souls, so he must believe that God endows those with souls with some measure of His own immortal nature. It is the soul which the rhetoric of Masonry says can never, never, never die.
References
1. Plato, Phaedo, Harvard Classics, Vol. 2, p. 52
2. Pike, Albert, Morals and Dogmas p. 846
3. Wilmshurst, W.L., The Meaning of Masonry, pp. 71-72
----o----
Freemasonry and American Culture, 1880 - 1930
by Lynn Dumenil
"The lack of serious attention to voluntary fraternal organisations is a scandal of American historical scholarship. This exciting work goes a long way toward correcting the lapse. It takes the Masons seriously, though not uncritically, and explores with great subtlety their social ideas and shifting, cultural roles."
- Paul Beryer, University of Wisconsin
Of the hundreds of secret fraternal orders that flourished in the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the Ancient and Accepted Order of Freemasons was the most popular and prestigious. Lynn Dumenil examines the Freemasons, a community of white, primarily native, Protestant males, in the period of their greatest influence. 1880-1930, showing how the movement mirrored changing middle-class values. (a)
As the United States moved from Victorian values to those of modern consumerism, the religious component of Freemasonry was increasingly displaced by a secular ideology of service (like that of business and professional clubs), and the Freemasons' psychology of asylum from the competitive world gave way to the aim of 'good fellowship' within it. This study not only illuminates this process but clarifies the neglected topic of fraternal orders and enriches our understanding of key facets of American cultural change.
Lynn Dumenil is Assistant Professor of History at Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington.
Brotherhood and Respectability - The Nineteenth Century
Just as Masonic rituals were well suited to late nineteenth century religious ideas, the moral lessons they inculcated were appropriate to the prevailing Protestant middle-class culture. In addition to religious lessons, the initiate received brief lectures on the Masonic tenets of brotherly love, charity, truth, fortitude, prudence, temperance, and justice, all of which emphasized the golden rule and the constant striving for moral perfection. Similar moral lessons were also imparted through an explanation of the elaborate systems of symbols and "working tools" of an operative Mason. The neophyte learned, for example, that the lambskin apron was to be a constant reminder of that "purity of life and conduct" so essential to gaining admission to the "Celestial lodge above." Similarly, he discovered in the Entered Apprentice degree that
the common gavel is an instrument made use of by operative masons to break off the corners of rough stones, the better to fit them for the builder's use; but we, as free and accepted masons, are taught to make use of it for the more noble and glorious purpose of divesting our hearts and consciences of all the vices and superfluities of life; thereby fitting our minds as living stones for that spiritual building, that house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
The theme of self improvement was repeatedly invoked in Masonic literature. TJ. Wilson, the orator for an 1887 Saints Johns' Day Feast in San Bernardino, California, aptly summed up the ideal Mason's attributes:
Masonry teaches him (the neophyte) to be just, faithful, true and vigilant, to watch his own conduct, to circumscribe his desires and keep his passions within due bounds, to square his actions by the square of virtue, to do unto others as he would have others do unto him, to seize the golden moments as they pass and employ them in the pursuit of some useful calling, giving a due proportion of time to the service of God and the assistance of his fellowman: to divest his mind and conscience of all the vices and superfluities and walk uprightly before God and man.
Appeal to one or all of these duties constantly surfaced. In particular, authors stressed one of the cardinal virtues of the order - - temperance. While the idea of temperance frequently included the specific injunction to avoid alcoholic excess, it generally encompassed the much broader notion of restraint and self-government. As one Trestleboard author noted, temperance "embraces subjection of all the appetites and passions, and the restriction of the Craftsman, in every respect of person, thoughts word and act, within due bounds." Restraint of one's passions facilitated brotherly love. It allowed one to banish selfishness and greed so that the Mason could treat others fairly, honestly, and charitably.
The Masonic view of morality, with its emphasis on self-improvement, honesty, industry temperance, and sobriety mirrored Victorian American culture. This reflection was not altogether an unconscious one. Masonic spokesmen were quite aware of the values respectable society honored and sought to insure Masonry's reputation by identifying the order as an institution dedicated to inculcating moral behavior. This sensitivity to public opinion appeared constantly, as spokesmen urged lodges to guard against harboring immoral men. For example, in 1877, the Chicago Tribune reprinted Michigan's Grand Master's call for expulsion of the "notoriously profligate" and "profane." He insisted that Masters "purge" your lodges of such. They are a source of weakness and a cause of shame and disgrace. A society making the professions that we do ought to be heard upon questions of public morality." Masonic leaders wanted to maintain Masonry's respectability by guaranteeing that none but worthy men could claim Masonic membership. As one author summed it up, "The world has a right to expect that he (the Mason) will be a better citizen, a more considerate, truer friend, a man of probity, to follow whose example will be safe... The fact that a man was connected with the Institution ought to be a passport into any respectable society. Membership in a lodge ought to give a man an undoubted reputation for honesty and fair dealing."
Masonic leaders' sensitivity to public opinion and their determination to maintain the order's reputation were particularly well demonstrated by the widespread movement to prohibit saloonkeepers from joining Masonry. By 1897, twenty-four Grand Lodges had passed laws forbidding lodges from accepting petitions from men engaged in the saloon business, by 1912, all but seventeen jurisdictions had enacted similar legislation. Other fraternal organisations, as well as the Knights of Labor, followed the same policy. A movement started in the South and West. where temperance support was strongest, the condemnation of the saloonkeeper was quite in keeping with popular attitudes.
In the late nineteenth century, temperance sentiment, long a part of Protestant middle-class culture, split over the issue of prohibition. Earlier reformers had concentrated on securing individual regeneration, but as the cities filled with immigrants and laboring people and the widespread existence of poverty and municipal corruption became clear, the liquor problem assumed ominous proportions that individual reform seemed powerless to stem. Many reformers fastened on the saloon as the key to understanding poverty, vice, Iabor unrest, and graft, depicting saloonkeepers as immoral men who not only dispensed poison, but also fostered prostitution and gambling and who joined with ward politicians to keep a tight rein on the politics of the city. This popular image promoted a growing sentiment for prohibition laws that would supplement persuasion with the coercive power of the law.
This view of the saloon and saloonkeeper was spread by churches, literature, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, the Prohibition Party, the Anti-Saloon League, and by many other agencies. While the eventual support for prohibition laws stemmed in part from a conviction of the evils and immorality of drinking as such, it was also based on the belief that closing the saloons would help to establish control over the vicious and unpredictable people who inhabited the country's slums. Elimination of the saloon and the liquor traffic became a panacea for many - drunkenness was a convenient explanation for poverty and misery that would not challenge Americans' faith in their democratic republic.
Masons shared the prevailing view of the saloon and reflected the complex attitudes about drinking that surrounded the prohibition movement. The Masonic drive to bar saloonkeepers from the order was influenced in part by a small sector within Masonry anxious to have the order officially endorse prohibition legislation. There were frequent complaints in the literature about temperance "cranks" who were trying to turn Masonry into a prohibition society. But while some Masons were clearly motivated by a desire to use Masonry to stop the "crying curse of the age," the most important impulse behind the ban on saloonkeepers was to use the temperance issue to make Masonry's stand on the side of public morality clear to the world at large. For example, A.H. Barkley of Mississippi lauded the new spirit in Masonry and revealed the importance of Masonry's public reputation. He exclaimed that the banning of saloonkeepers "has placed Masonry on a high moral plane, and the good, noble and true men of our land are knocking at our doors, and earnestly and of their own accord, asking for admission to the mysteries of Freemasonry." He continued:
We have lifted up the standard on high, planted it in the midst of the camp so that both those within and without may see it, read and know for themselves, that a Masonic Lodge is no place for the immoral, licentious, intemperate, and that our doors are forever closed against those who in anywise deal out ardent or intoxicating liquors, and God helping us, we intend to keep this standard lifted up as a warning to all such that they need not apply for admission among us.
Similarly, an Arizona Mason, urging that his Grand Lodge exclude saloonkeepers, argued that it was imperative that Arizona Masons show "that we are unalterably on the side of law and order, and proclaim to the world that temperance is the chief cornerstone of our government." Legislation barring saloonkeepers, then, was a symbolic device for underlining Masonry's commitment to the moral order.
That the measures were in large part symbolic is suggested by the fact that saloonkeepers do not appear to have been numerous in Masonry. Opponents of the laws frequently claimed that they were unnecessary. An Arizona Mason, explaining why his Grand Lodge had not banned saloonkeepers, reported that since it had long been an unwritten rule to reject them, there were very few liquor dealers in Arizona. Another Mason, hostile to the "temperance cranks" trying to inject their views into Masonry, also indicated the operation of unwritten laws when he complained in a letter to the editor of the America Tyler that his lodge "has got to the point where if a liquor dealer asks admission he can't find anybody to recommend him, and we don't have any [liquor] racket either."
Legislation aimed at saloonkeepers then, was "safe." Affecting relatively few men, it gave Masonry the opportunity to proclaim that the order - and its membership - supported public morality. The laws were designed primarily to demonstrate that Masons, like all respectable men, felt that saloons were anathema - the curse of the poor, the scourge of the cities - and that they condemned and excluded the men who ran them and who profited from the sins and weaknesses of others.
In a more general sense the laws established Masonry's commitment to the ideal of temperance, although Masons disagreed over what temperance entailed. As in the case of religious views, Masons varied in their perception of acceptable moral behavior. Some Masons insisted that the order should require total abstinence. The Reverend Gilbert Small, for example, criticised Masonry for closing its doors to the dram seller while still permitting the dram drinker, and claimed that intoxicating liquors' "use as a beverage, or even its manufacture or sale to be used as such, is a Masonic offense."
Far more infrequent than the calls for abstention, however, were the reminders that while Masonry embraced temperance, it was not a prohibition society. The Grand Master of Missouri, in the midst of the saloonkeeper-law controversy, was quoted in the New York Times as saying that "Masonry advocates temperance, but it does not prohibit the taking of a drink. It does condemn drinking to excess." Frederick Speed, a well-respected Masonic official from Mississippi, explained that the temperance that Masonry teaches "is not the sort which runs to the extreme of forbidding the use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, but on the contrary we freely admit that it permits a moderate and reasonable use of them, but it denounces immorality in every form in which it may appear."
The presence of intoxicants at Masonic functions is further evidence that many Masons condoned moderate drinking. Scanty evidence makes it impossible to judge how widespread was the practice of serving liquor at lodges. On the one hand, there are accounts of drinking such as the one the Pacific Mason ran in 1904. Reiterating Masonry's distinction between temperance and prohibition, the editor disapproved of lodges that "have cut out beer at the fourth degree." As an example of how moderate indulgence made for a pleasant lodge meeting, he printed an extract from the Milwaukee Masonic Tidings, which obviously approved of the beer-drinking German Masons who enjoyed an informal social hour "pregnant of the spirit of good fellowship and fraternity." On the other hand, in 1891, the California Grand Master noted that in his travels he had observed "a great and growing feeling against the evil of indulging in wine at the banquet table. This disposition has strewn to such an extent that it may almost be considered to have reached the proportion of prohibition." In general, sentiment appears to have been growing against drinking in lodges. However, it is probably the case that lodge indulgence depended on local custom and sentiment.
The clearest indications that Masons had intoxicants at their functions emerge in the discussions surrounding attempts to ban them from lodge rooms and lodge functions. For example, Georgia failed to enact a ban on intoxicants, despite the insistence of its Grand Master, Josiah I. Wright. In 1883. Wright acknowledged that liquor was permissible at functions held in hotels and restaurants, but deprecated the practice of "carrying into ante-rooms kegs of beer, baskets of wines, ale, porter and the like" as "exceedingly offensive to many brethren." Wright concluded by insisting that Masons, "who profess to be moral men," must lead the way and set a good example: "We know where we stand, and the outside world ought to know." However, Georgia's committee on jurisprudence did not concur. It decided that once the lodge meeting had been formally closed and the brethren "resolved into their individual conditions as men and citizens," intoxicants could be served so long as lodge members did not "indulge beyond that moderation which becometh a man and a Mason."
Although legislation prohibiting intoxicants in lodge rooms was enacted in various states; it lagged far behind the saloonkeeper restrictions. Eager to condemn saloonkeepers. Grand Lodges were less willing to condemn drinking per se. By 1900, only six jurisdictions had passed laws; by 1913, the total was only fourteen. This discrepancy between enthusiasm for prohibiting saloonkeepers and reluctance for banning alcohol from lodges is interesting and may indicate how support for prohibition could develop even among moderate drinkers. While most Masons did not condemn drinking, they did condemn saloons and excessive drinking. Trusting their own ability to restrain their passions, their antipathy to saloons indicates their belief that not all men were capable of self-government. The Masonic ambivalence to saloonkeepers and drinking suggests how much sympathy for prohibition could have emanated not from a belief in the immorality of drinking, but from the conviction that saloons, as major contributors to poverty, vice, and social disorder, were affronts to respectability.
The slowness with which sentiment developed to outlaw intoxicants, as well as the repeated insistence that Masons did not demand abstinence, indicates a surprising amount of toleration of moderate drinking. This sentiment is particularly interesting in light of Masons' sensitivity to the order's public reputation, and may indicate something of the broader culture’s (or at least its male component's) attitude toward drinking. Despite the growth of prohibition sentiment in the late nineteenth century, Masonic attitudes suggest that one need not necessarily be an abstainer to be respectable. Division within Masonry over the definition of temperance suggests the variety of middle-class notions of respectability and morality, which would become far more apparent when national Prohibition became law and defiance among "respectable" people became commonplace.
While not completely in accord on the drinking question. Masons shared the belief that a good Mason must be honest, industrious, and temperate. The question remains of course, to what extent Masons conformed to their society's norms. Many spokesmen insisted that the order admitted only moral men. A frequent refrain was that while Masonry encouraged self-improvement, it should not be viewed as a moral reformatory. As Oregon's Grand Master, George E. Chamberlain, explained, Masonry cannot "reform the wicked by receiving them into its fold"; rather, "our upright lives, fair dealing and honorable conduct ....should be an example worthy of emulation." Masons then, should be good men to begin with, who would use the order as guide to their progress. In short, Masonry was a reward for proven virtue, an honor extended to a select few.
(a) Lynn Dumenil, Freemasonry and American Culture. 1880-1930, Copyright (c) 1984 by Princeton University Press, Excerpt, pp. 75-80, reprinted by permission of Princeton University Press.
----o----
Al Cerza Books of Interest to Masons
The Masonic Service Association is continuing its work as "The Servant of Freemasonry" with the following recent publications:
Judge Newell Lamb, Past Grand Master of Indiana, Masonic Trials and Privileged Communications: $1.54 postpaid;
Dwight L. Smith, Why The Confusion in the Temple? Republication of a well received brochure which discusses various prescriptions being urged to solve the problems within the Craft and why they will not work; $2.13 postpaid;
Masonic Homes, Hospitals, and Charity Foundations; $1.25 postpaid;
Masonic Research Lodges, updated; Fifty cents.
Available from the Association at 8120 Fenton Street, Silver Spring, Md. 20910.
About the year 1920 Delmar D. Darrah, a prominent member of the Craft, conceived the idea of writing a Passion Play for production in Bloomington, Illinois. A few years later the first Play was presented at the Scottish Rite Cathedral, in that city, and the cast consisted primarily of members of the Scottish Rite. Since that time every Spring the play has been presented with considerable success with persons from adjoining states travelling hundreds of miles to see the play. Some years ago a full scale book dealing with the general subject of Passion Plays with special emphasis on the production in Bloomington was written by Louis L. Williams, entitled "The American Passion Play." A revised paper-back edition has been published bringing the subject up-to-date.
Available at $5.75 a copy from The American Passion Play, P.O. Box 3354. Bloomington. Ill. 61702.
There has been published "Freemasons' Hall, The Home and Heritage of the Craft," by James Stubbs and T.O. Haunch, with a foreword by the Duke of Kent. It is a sixty-four page booklet designed for guidance for persons visiting Freemason's Hall in London and has many fine pictures.
Available from The Library, Art and Publications Committee. Freemason’s Hall, 27 Great Queen St., London. WC 5BA, England at 3.25 Pounds for the soft cover edition and 4.75 Pounds for the hardcover edition.
The Masonic Book Club has been in existence since 1970 and has published an outstanding book of interest to Masons each year since that time, plus a few "bonuses." The 1984 book consists of a reproduction of Hunt's Masonic Concordance of the Holy Bible, with pages larger than the original edition for easy reading. A number of memberships to the Club are now available.
Inquiries about membership and the 1984 book should be sent to Michael Weer, Secretary, P.O. Box 1563. Bloomington, Ill. 61701.
The late Brother Harvey Dunn was a famous artist whose pictures appeared in the old Saturday Evening Post and other national magazines. He was a Mason and a native of South Dakota. To commemorate the hundredth anniversary of his birth Brother Aubrey Sherwood, a newspaper editor, has written an interesting brochure about Harvey Dunn with the title "I Remember Harvey Dunn" together with several of his pictures.
Available at $3.37 a copy from Aubrey Sherwood, Box S. De Smet, S.D. 57231.
The Pride of All Freemasons, giving news and information about the George Washington National Masonic Memorial, located at Alexandria, Virginia, is free and you can get your name on the mailing list by writing to the Memorial P.R. office, located at 440 Hancock St., Quincy, Mass. 02171.
The Masonic Square is a magazine published in London, England which describes itself as "The Magazine for Freemasons Everywhere." It has many short items of general interest and news for Masons located all over the world. Here is a sampling of some of the articles that appear in the June, 1984 issue: The Sack of Jersey, being a description of the Nazi invasion of Jersey in 1941 and what they did to the Masonic Temple there: The Spirit Remains, being a description of the 1666 Fire of London and what happened there during the War in 1940 but did not extinguish the spirit of Freemasonry: The Golden Fleece; Masonic Fakirs; and Mark Token.
The Annual subscription price is $17.00 and should be mailed to Lewis Masonic Publishers, Terminal House. Shepperton TW17 8AS, England.
Research Lodge No. 2, of lowa, still has a few copies available of the following popular items published by the lodge:
H.L. Haywood, Introduction to Freemasonry: $2.00 a copy;
J.E. Marsengill, Negro Masonry in Iowa; $3.25 a copy;
A.E. Roberts, Shedding Light on Leadership; $5.00;
R.A. Wells, Five Masonic Lectures; $5.00;
W.H. Stemper, Jr., Wisdom, Strength and Beauty.
Available from D.S. Pady, Secretary, 212 North Riverside Drive, Ames, Iowa 50010.
John Philip Sousa, the march king and composer, was a Mason, and he composed two marches specifically for Masonic bodies: The Thunderer, for the Grand Encampment of Knights Templar, and Nobles of the Mystic Shrine for the Imperial Council of the Shrine. There has been published a fine book entitled "Perspectives on John Philip Sousa," edited by Jon Newsom, containing a number of essays on the subject of marches and of John Philip Sousa. The book contains a detailed analysis of Sousa’s famous march "The Stars and Stripes Forever."
Available at $17.00 a copy from the Music Division, Research Services United States Printing Office, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20402.
Many years ago our late Brother H.L Haywood, wrote an interesting "Introduction to Freemasonry" which went through many editions. It has been one of the most popular items of Research Lodge No. 2, of Iowa, being now in its 14th printing. It makes a fine gift for a newly raised Mason.
Available at $2.00 a copy from D.S. Padre Secretary 212 No. Riverside Drive Ames. Iowa 50010.
----o----
by George H.T. French, FPS
Masonry grew by change. It grew by addition, deletion and modification of the elements that constitute its doctrine, goals, ceremonies and ritual. And that includes the ceremony of installation. And because this ceremony is not universally uniform in its practice today and because its development has been irregular as it slowly matured over the centuries, it is unsafe to suggest a clear and precise definition for the term "installation ceremony."
In the early days before 1717 the Master was "chosen" and took his place accordingly." The Premier Grand Lodge, created in 1717, adopted a procedure called installation which included an obligation taken within the view of the whole lodge membership, followed by a physical induction into the Chair. Later on, in some lodges, the word installation signified the esoteric communication of a grip and word - and we know that a ceremony of this sort was actually in print as early as 1760. (1) To further complicate matters, in some places the installation ceremony was referred to as the Festival of St. John. Tradition dies hard, and the expression is still used occasionally. (2)
This knotty situation definitely demands a historical review of the growth of the ceremony to be able to understand the several practices current today.
Operative Practice
In the old operative lodges, Masters were "chosen" and took their chair accordingly. That simple. In the 600 years of recorded history of Masonry in England there is no trace of even the most elementary ceremony of installation before the formation of the first Grand Lodge in 1717. (3) Similarly, the old Scottish lodge records, from circa 1600 onwards, provide records of the choice of the principal officers, but nothing about any kind of ceremony of induction or installation. (4)
In those early days the senior Fellow in lodge could act as the Master of the lodge, and it somewhat naturally follows that, with the growth of the custom by which the lodge appointed one particular Master for a period of a few months or of a year, eventually there would develop a ceremony of putting him in the chair. (5)
Wharton's Ceremony
On page 71 of Dr. James Anderson's Book of Constitutions 1723, there is a postscript saying:
Here follows the Manner of constituting a New Lodge, as practis'd by his Grace the Duke of Wharton, the present Right Worshipful Grand Master, according to the ancient Usages of Masons.
The text also contained the earliest description of the Installation of the Master of a new lodge. Basically, Wharton's installation procedure consisted of the Grand Master ascertaining whether the Candidate was a ''worthy Brother...of good morals and great skill," installing him "by certain significant and ancient usages (which are not described), (6) reciting to him the "Charges of a Master", and then presenting him with the Book of Constitutions, the Lodge Book, and the instruments of his office, after each of which was rehearsed a predetermined pithy Charge suitable to the thing presented. Then followed the Grand Master's suggestion that the Master "chuse" (sic) his Wardens, and install them. In some writings it says invest, retaining the word install exclusively for the Master. (7) Significantly, there was no trace of an Obligation being taken by the Master-elect, nor any hint of a sign, grip or word being communicated to him, no esoteric content.
An interesting item from days of yore was the so-called "Fees of Honour" to be paid to the Lodge by the new Officers, and the fines for non-acceptance of office, also quite usual.
The earliest description of the Installation of the Master of a new lodge makes no mention of the lodge being opened into a particular degree. It may be assumed that the procedure took place in the Second Degree, because in those days there were only two degrees, and because Anderson's Book of Constitutions 1738 stated "the lodge being open'd, and...the New Master and Wardens being yet among the Fellow Crafts. . ."
By virtue of the fact that the ceremony was first printed in Anderson's Book of Constitutions one infers that the procedure originated in London, England. (8) Seven years later an identical version was published by John Pennell, Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Ireland.
The ritual of the installation Ceremony is the only ritual of any kind published by Anderson, and its very wording shows that it is a procedure he himself had witnessed. (9) His description was accepted by John Pennell in Ireland, and later by Laurence Dermott, Grand Secretary of the newly created Grand Lodge of the Ancients. (10)
Up to that time it would appear that the Ceremony of Installation was performed only for the first Master of a newly constituted Lodge. However, its length was about nine-tenths of the Ceremony of constituting a new lodge. This in itself indicates the importance which was attached to the Installation Ceremony. (11) Surviving minutes show that the Installation of Masters did not become instantly popular, neither did lodges generally follow the Wharton procedure exactly as described by Anderson. The same reluctance had greeted the appearance of the Third Degree in the early 1700s, for most Masons in those days were content to take only the First and Second Degrees, and when the Third Degree was created it took many years to obtain universal acceptance.
It is almost impossible, in the first half of the Eighteenth Century, to find any Minutes that could be taken to imply a full installation procedure when an established lodge renewed its Officers. The practice in the English lodges was limited to some little speech of advice and congratulations, delivered by the outgoing Master or a senior Fellow Craft, and almost certainly the recital of an Old Charge. (5) Likewise, Scottish lodges continued to use the old installation procedure for a long time, until the year 1872. (12) It was this year, and during the Grand Mastership of Lord Roslyn that the Grand Lodge of Scotland for the first time recognized the Past Master's Ceremonial of Installation. This was sanctioned so as to remove the disqualification which hitherto prevented Scotch Past Masters being present at the installation of Masters in English lodges.
As already mentioned, the installation procedure which originated in England was presented in Ireland by Brother John PenneII, and from there reintroduced circa 1740 into one or more of the irregular lodges in England which later formed themselves into the "Antients" Grand Lodge. (13) This fact explains why the installation ritual was published not only in every edition of the Book of Constitutions of the regular Grand Lodge of England, but was also published by the so called "Ancients."
An Oath Appears
The earliest description of a structured Installation Ceremony in Scotland was at the Lodge of Kelso in 1754. It contained a further step in sophistication, the new feature consisting of an Oath of Fidelity, innovation followed by the presentation of the jewels of office. In reality, it so happened that the same practice was being used at that time by some lodges under the Premier Grand Lodge of England. (14) William Preston in the 1775 edition of his Illustrations of Masonries described the procedure in these words: "The New Master having signified his cordial submission, is bound to his trust and invested with the badge of his office by the Grand Master". But, as yet, there was no trace of the Oath being followed by the "Inner Working." That is to say, there were no "secrets" communicated to the New Master. (14)
This installation procedure had slowly developed in England and Scotland from the bare practice of merely placing the Master in the Chair to a ceremony with an Obligation and a penalty of its own. However, it was very unfrequently used by the established English lodges, being practiced almost exclusively when constituting a new lodge. But when the Antient Grand Lodge was formed in 1751 it was only natural that Laurence Dermott, its ambitious and active Grand Secretary, would naturally search for something to give his members which they could not get in a lodge under the Premier Grand Lodge. What better than the Installation Ceremony which he had recently learned from Bro. Edward Spratt, the Grand Secretary of Ireland, and which was so rarely used in England at that time? So the Installation Ceremony was very strongly advocated by Bro. Dermott. (12) Thus the novel procedure was readily adopted by the "Antients", who experienced no difficulty in accepting as of "time immemorial" any piece of ritual offering an attractive ceremonial. (13) It really was odd that while the Antients wholeheartedly adopted and effectively imposed its use at every Installation in their lodges, the Moderns were not that enthusiastic.
There is no doubt that the Premier Grand Lodge had permitted the ceremony of installing lodge officers to lapse. But they had their reasons for so doing, and the reasons are described by Bro. H.L. Haywood on page 32 of his book The Newly Made Mason. In those days there were no newspapers and no telephones, but criticism and ridicule was conveyed in lampoons, cartoons, and popular songs which could be both sarcastic and satirical. Hence the Grand Lodge protected itself by avoiding public exposures and forbade all public Masonic processions, did not encourage Masonic speeches or publications, and did not permit the performance of ornate installation ceremonies. However, it did continue to install a Master following the consecration of a new lodge. Another reason was that the Moderns appointed Masters who remained in office for several years, thus giving rise to the supposition that the ceremony of installation was not used, but was ''neglected." (15)
Not until the formation of the Lodge of Promulgation in October 1809 did the Modems admit that the ceremony was an essential part of Freemasonry. In the Minute of its meeting on 19 October 1810 it was "Resolved that it appears to this Lodge, that the ceremony of Installation of Masters of Lodges is one of the two (or true?) Landmarks of the Craft, and ought to be observed''. (16) Due to the scribe's indistinct handwriting it has been impossible to determine whether the word is "two" or "true". By the way, the Lodge of Promulgation was a temporary lodge formed by the Moderns to prepare their ritual and ceremonies for the 1813 Union with the Grand Lodge of the Antients.
In the years immediately following the foundation of the Premier Grand Lodge in 1717, the Grand Master himself, or his duly appointed representative, performed the ceremony of Constituting a new lodge and installing the New Master. This method gradually gave way to the "modern" method, whereby the lodge was actually constituted and the Master and Wardens appointed by a document signed by the Grand Master. The document became known as the Warrant or Charter of the lodge. The installation was then performed by the Grand Master's representative, or by a Past or duly Installed Master.
The Antients venerated the ceremony and insisted that their Masters be properly installed, and that they have the ability to install their successors. (13) For instance, The Antients Grand Lodge issued a Warrant for a Provincial Grand Lodge in Andalusia, Spain, in 1786, and sent it with an order for a regular Installation. (16)
Herewith a Masonic anecdote that makes it quite clear that an Installation to be valid had to be performed by Installed Masters. In Bristol, England, on 22 June 1773, Brother Joshua French was elected to the Chair of his Lodge. Evidently the Master, William Wady, had expected to serve a second term, but not having been elected, took umbrage, threw down his collar and walked out. On June 28th Bro. French seems to have invested himself. However, on August 9th, 1773, he got himself duly installed by some visiting Past Masters. (17)
It would seem that until the year 1753, at least, the installation Ceremony was a very important part of the constitution of a new lodge. This gives an obvious reason why the Manner of Constituting a new Lodge, including the Installation Ceremony, is included in the various Books of Constitutions, as well as in all the Pocket Companions of the period. (18)
In the late 1700s and early 1800s a number of the American States were forming their own Grand Lodges, and one of the first things they each had to do was to decide on and publish a Book of Constitutions, which in most cases included the form of the Installation Ceremony along with corresponding Charges, Prayers and Addresses. (18) These items were taken from various Pocket Companions, and especially from Preston's Illustrations of Masonry. Preston's was the most popular source and served as a guide for many American publications. (18)
William Preston, always an informed compiler and careful composer, outlined the ceremonies of Constitution, Consecration and Installation of a Lodge under three separate headings in his 1772 Illustrations of Masonry. Preston's installation procedure embodied only Wharton's procedures without any reference to the secrets of the "inner working", although he wrote several years after the publication of Three Distinct Knocks (1760) and Jachin and Boaz (1762). He added an interesting footnote which said "The same ceremony and charges attend every succeeding installation", thereby emphasizing the use of the ceremony in every change of Master.
Bro. Alex Horne, the eminent Masonic scholar from San Francisco, CA tells us that (A.Q.C. 89 (1976) p. 48) the American installation procedure is, by and large, a faithful replica of the 18th. Century English ceremony, and this fact is sure to be of interest to American Masons. It can, in fact, be seen to go back to the original Wharton procedure, largely unchanged despite the passage of some two and a half centuries of time and thousands of miles in space. This fact came about because Preston published the Installation in his Illustrations as early as 1772, and Preston's Illustrations became very popular in the United States and especially with Thomas Smith Webb, author of America's first Monitor. T.S. Webb published at Albany, N.Y., in 1797 The Freemason’s Monitor or Illustrations of Masonry, based on Preston's Illustrations of Masonry. As Preston's book carried no Address to the Master as part of the Installation Ceremony, Webb compiled one from other sources. In his 1808 edition he presents an Address to the Master which contains portions taken from several authors. From Bro. Wellins Calcott's book published in London in 1769 and called A Candid Disqusition of the Principles and Practice of the Most Ancient and Honourable Society of Free and Accepted Masons. This book must have been easily available to Webb because an edition was published in Boston, Mass., by Bro. William M’Alpine, of Marlborough Street in 1772. From an edition of William Hutchinson's The Spirit of Masonry published in New York in the year 1800. And from a book published in 1777 in Exeter, England, by Bro. Robert Trewman, called The Principles of Freemasonry Delineated. (19)
Wharton's Ceremony (1723), Preston's Illustrations (2nd. edition, 1775) and Webb's Monitor (1808) are basically similar, with some differences. In Preston the Master Elect is taken "from among the fellows" and presented at the pedestal. In Webb the candidate is a Master Mason, presented before the altar, and once installed receives an address.
Inner Working
In many of today’s lodges the term installation implies a formal ceremony, the esoteric part of which is referred to as the "Inner Working", and is performed in the presence of only Installed Masters and the Master Elect. The latter receives some kind of esoteric information, consisting of a sign, grip and word following which he is placed in the Chair. (17)
There is apparently no definite knowledge of any secrets accompanying the chairing of the Master until the 1750s when the Antients are believed to have introduced the installation ceremony requiring for its performance the presence of Past Masters of the Lodge. (5)
Previous to that time, the installation should be referred to as a procedure, which is a manner of proceeding in a given course of action. And from then on, because of the introduction of the secrets of the Chair with signs, grips, words and working tools, the term ceremony would be more adequate, which by definition is a formal act, or series of acts, often symbolical.
Laurence Dermott made it a point of pride that the Antients used the ceremony in all lodge installations whereas the Premier Grand Lodge did not. (9) Immediately following this there appeared two exposures: Three Distinct Knocks (1760) and Jachin and Boaz (1762). Supposedly they represented respectively the working of the "Antients" and the "Moderns". Both described an installation ceremony in which the Master took an Obligation and received a grip and word in the following manner: (20)
Then the late Master takes off his Jewel and puts it upon him, and takes him by the Master's gripe and raises him off his knees, and whispers in his ear the word, which is C...., or an Excellent Mason; then he slips his hand from the Master’s gripe to ........., and strikes his ..... in as you do in the other gripe at ...... This is the word and grip belonging to the Chair. (21)
This early description of an Installation Ceremony, unconnected with the Constitution of a new lodge, appeared nearly forty years after Wharton's text. The Lodge was apparently in the Third Degree, and there is no mention of election or presentation of Master Elect, no reading of the Charges of a Master, nor any of the routine procedures which may have been well established by this time. The text seems to confine itself, deliberately, only to the esoteric portion of the Ceremony. (6) Other exposures of the second half of the 18th. Century agree on the secret parts of the "inner working" and give them in full: the Obligation, embodying the Penalties of the Three Degrees; the Grip: and the Word given in a whisper as the Master is being raised. (9)
It is interesting to trace the gradual development of the Installation Ceremony through the pages of various editions of Preston's Illustrations. For example, in the 1792 edition we get the first addresses on the Working Tools given in full, and the appointment and investiture of the Deacon; while in the 1801 edition there appears the first mention of the "Inner Working" taking place before a Board of Installed Masters:
The New Master conducted to an adjacent room where he is regularly installed and bound to his trust in ancient form, by his predecessor in office, in the presence of three Installed Masters. (18)
When referring to Preston it must be remembered that he never taught anything definitive - he was always adding, correcting, improving, keeping in tune with Freemasonry's development and his own increasing knowledge.
Preston's Third Lecture gives the Inner Working, but it is still the so-called "short" ceremony (see A.Q.C. 84 1971) in which the Board of Installed Masters is both formed and adjourned by a simple knock of the gavel and declaration. (22) From 1760 to 1813 the Installation was gradually taking on its modern form, moving steadily toward the 1827 division of the Obligation into two parts, (18) the second part containing the secrets and penalties to be given in the presence of the Installed Masters only. The two parts of the Obligation were clearly defined, and they were in fact a much expanded and polished version of the Obligation that had appeared in Three Distinct Knocks and Jachin and Boaz. (22) To which must be added that the various addresses were tending to become fixed due to the several Pocket Companions published, and especially to Preston's Illustrations.
Brother Alex Horne (A.Q.C. 89, p. 49) believes that about a third of the American Jurisdictions employ a secret ceremony either as a mandatory or as an optional institution. Colorado, Maine and Georgia consider it as an optional institution. Pennsylvania uses the Inner Working known to them as "Passing the Chair". Tennessee discontinued it about a quarter of a century ago. The Grand Lodge of New York established in 1896 that the Master Elect of the Lodge, previous to his Installation, must be put in possession of the "secrets of the Chair", and in 1935 decided that the Installation was to take place behind tiled doors. (23) The Codified Digest of Laws of the Grand Lodge of the Commonwealth of Virginia states in Section 2.46 that the title of Past Master shall always be understood to mean one who has been elected Master of a Lodge, has received the Degree of Past Master in a Provisional Lodge of Past Masters, or in a Chapter of Royal Arch Masons, and has been installed and has served as Master of his lodge for at least one Masonic year. Furthermore, it is stated in Section 2.47 that a Provisional Lodge of Past Masters for the purpose of conferring the Degree upon any Master or Warden Elect may be held at any time in any lodge-room by three or more Past Masters.
Henry W. Coil, in his Masonic Encyclopedia, page 454, tells us that on January 5, 1809 the Grand Master of Ohio was installed using the Ancient Ceremony, that is, the Lodge of the Third Degree which had been opened was closed. Then a Past Master's Lodge was opened in which the Installation took place, after which the Past Master's Lodge was closed and a Third Degree Lodge opened for the Installation of the other Officers. This method was later followed in Virginia, New Hampshire and Kentucky.
W. Bro. Wallace E. McLeod, Past Master of Quatuor Coronati Lodge, reports that in Ontario, Canada, there are no "Open" Installations. They are all in a Tyled Lodge-room, and partly in a Board of Installed Masters, from which all who are not Installed Masters have retired. The wording and ceremonies are post-Union, and are recognizably akin to Emulation. Our one innovation is a piece of Canadian ritual - the only one we have. The Charge to the Brethren at the conclusion ("such is the nature of our institution. . .") has been expanded by inserting about ten minutes of wording in the middle. It is really quite beautiful.
It is apparent that under this system two things happen to a Master Elect at his installation: first, the Board of Installed Masters makes him an Installed Master, and secondly, the Lodge makes him Master of his Lodge.
This 1750s innovation of communicating the secrets to the new Master but not to the Wardens, started most likely in London, and in a way created an entirely new degree in Masonry. As a result, the status of the Wardens declined, so that towards the end of the 18th Century the Wardens were being merely appointed and invested - not installed. (24) Expressed in another way, there appeared a rite (the esoteric "inner working") within a rite, and the formal installation of Wardens was eliminated. This brought about a shift towards monopoly of rule by the Master at the expense of the Wardens. (17)
An Adjacent Room
Up to 1792 the whole Ceremony of Installation had been conducted in the lodge-room. But from then on the Installed Masters withdrew with the Master Elect to another room. In Preston's 1801 edition of his lllustrations there appears an "adjacent room," system still practised in some jurisdictions. (25) The adjacent room, and a ceremony conducted in the presence of only Installed Masters, is the first clear evidence of an esoteric installation within a Board of Installed Masters, though that name had not yet made its appearance. The Master Elect was presented to the Installing Master; the Secretary read him the Ancient Charges and Regulations; then he was conducted to the adjacent room where, in the presence of three Installed Masters, he was regularly installed with secret details about which very little information has come down to us. The Minutes are not clear, but his practice seems to have continued until about 1822. (26)
According to Bro. Vibert the procedure of holding the Board of Installed Masters in an adjoining room was used in Bristol, in the West of England, as early as the year 1773, and some Bristol Lodges still continue using this system. (18) Another recent example of the survival of the adjacent room occurred in St. Mary Lodge No. 31, in Coltness, Wishaw, Scotland, and is described in the March 1984 issue of the magazine Masonic Square:
The two Installed Masters and the Master Elect were immaculately dressed in white tie and tails, while other Officers wore morning dress with gray ties. While those below the rank of Installed Masters remained in the Temple with the second Installed Master, the Inner Working took place in the lounge, after which all present signed a special card and toasted the new R.W. Master. They returned to the Temple where, during their absence, four of the Lodge Officers had been invested with the badge of their office. The harmony with entertainment and speeches, continued until the small hours of the morning. (27)
Temporary Withdrawal
In 1822 the procedure was changed, and instead of the Board of Installed Masters withdrawing to an adjacent room, now all the Brethren below the rank of Installed Masters were asked to retire from the Lodge room. (26) This is clear in George Claret's 1858 Ritual: "The Installing Master then requests two Past Masters to take the Wardens' Chairs and declares the Brethren present to be a Board of Installed Masters." The closing of the Board was also by declaration. (28)
On the 28th of December, 1837, Holland Lodge No. 1, Grand Lodge of Texas, was opened on the Sublime Degree of Master Mason. Brother Daniel T. Fitchett, a Past Master, was called upon to preside as Worshipful Master. "All the members but Past Masters having retired, the new Worshipful Master of this Lodge was installed for the ensuing year in due and ancient form. The Master Masons were then called in, when Bro. Gazley was installed as Senior Warden." (29) This temporary withdrawal of Brethren below the rank of Installed Masters suggests that Bro Jefferson Wright was installed with an esoteric ceremony, perhaps similar to that described in Three Distinct Knocks. And the fact that now the Brethren do not retire from the lodge room suggests that the esoteric interlude was discontinued. These events pose an interesting question. On the one hand, the three volume book Freemasonry in Pennsylvania states that "Lodge No. 2, at Philadelphia, PA, on December 12, 1815, opened a Master Mason's Lodge in ancient form ... All who were not Past Masters having withdrawn, the Worshipful Master Bro. James McKeage, was duly installed into office." (30) On the other hand, Dr. Anson Jones had been Master of a Pennsylvania Lodge (Harmony Lodge No. 52 in Philadelphia) in the year 1832, and in Texas he was not only the Master of Holland No. 1, Houston, Texas, but became Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the Republic of Texas. So the question arises - was there some link between Dr. Jones' Pennsylvania background and an apparent "Inner Working" in Holland Lodge No. 1?
Another enlightening case, M.W. Bro. Dwight L. Smith, in his book Goodly Heritage, tells us that the investiture of the new Grand Master (of Indiana), January 1818, was conducted in a manner that would be totally foreign to present-day Masons. Grand Lodge was called to refreshment and all Brethren except Past Masters retired. The Past Masters then proceeded to close the Lodge of Master Masons and to open Grand Lodge on the "Past Masters Degree." In that rarefied atmosphere, Alexander Buckner was installed in the Oriental Chair. The Past Masters Lodge was closed, a Lodge of Master Masons opened and the excluded Brethren were re-admitted for the Installation of the remaining Grand Officers. (31) This paragraph tells us that in 1818 Indiana practiced Inner Working, and that currently it does not.
In most Lodges under the English Constitution once all Master Masons have retired, the Board of Installed Masters is opened by declaration - short form - and the Inner Work takes place in the lodge room. After the Master Elect has been placed in the Chair the Board is closed, and the Brethren return to the lodge room.
Facing the West
A third practice consists of all those Master Masons below the rank of Installed Masters rising and facing the West during the esoteric ceremony, looking away from the East where the Past - or Installed - Masters encircle the Master Elect as he receives the "Gripe and Word" communicated to him. (32)
Brother Chetwode Crawley (1844-1916), the great Irish Masonic Historian, writes that in the Irish version of Wharton's Ritual there is no provision made for the ordinary Brethren to retire from the lodge room. Perhaps an explanation may be found in the practice of directing the Brethren to betake themselves to the West, behind the Senior Warden's Chair, where they stood with their faces turned away from the East. In the meantime, the Conclave (Irish name for Board) of Installed Masters surrounded the Master's Chair and the secret instructions were communicated in a whisper. Bro. Crawley well remembers when this practice was common in Irish Lodges, though it has since become a thing of the past. (18)
This system of turning to the West is used in Columbia Lodge No. 4682 (E.C.), a lodge in Buenos Aires. Argentina, whose membership is predominantly composed of American Brethren living permanently or temporarily in Argentina. In that way the lodge conforms to the inner working of the English Constitution under which it works, and to the procedure of not requiring the Brethren to absent themselves temporarily from the lodge room.
The Grand Lodge of Scotland continued to use the old Installation Ceremony and had no Board of Installed Masters until the year 1872. Oddly enough, there is a record of an installation in 1867 in which the Installing Master read the Charges, an Oath was administered, and the secrets were communicated to the Master Elect screened by a circle of Past Masters placed in front of the Chair. (18)
Extended Working
In the English Craft the term "Instal" now implies a formal ceremony part of which is restricted to Past Masters and the Master Elect, the latter receiving some kind of esoteric information, following which he is physically placed in the Chair, there to become the ruler de facto of his Lodge. A developed form of this ceremony is practiced in certain localities, of which Bristol is one, wherein the Inner Working requires both Opening and Closing in a manner radically different from that associated with any of the conventional degrees. (17) There is a Pass Word to the Opening, and the ceremonies contain several Signs, Tokens and Words. This further sophistication is referred to as the "Extended" Working, and sometimes as the "Long" Working. There is evidence to support the notion that some such ceremony did exist in 1827, but that the Grand Master’s Board of Installed Masters knew nothing about at, or decided not to adopt it. The latter is the more probable. (28)
The late Masonic scholar. Bro. P.R. James (1895-1971), was a great supporter of the "extended working" and a defender of its authenticity and antiquity, as proved by the history of his Lodge, Royal Cumberland No. 41. Bath, England.
It is a fact that the Ceremonies of Installation are quite different in the various Jurisdictions. (33) That is why the United Grand Lodge of England, in 1926, ruled that the "Extended Working" would be permitted if the Installing Master announced that the Signs, Tokens and Words are not necessarily communicated in all Masonic Lodges, nor are they known to all Installed Masters, and, therefore, are not essential to the Installation of a Master. (32) Herewith in full the Resolution adopted on December 1, 1926:
Grand Lodge takes note of the exceptional and traditional circumstances attaching in certain Lodges to the ceremonial of Opening and Closing in extenso of a Board of Installed Masters. While it still deprecates the use of any signs, tokens or words unknown to, or unrecognised by, the majority of English Installed Masters, it declares, in view of these circumstances, that, provided that there should be incorporated in such ceremony a precise declaration by the Installing Master to the Master Elect that the Signs, Tokens, and Words given in the course of the extended portion of the working are not known to, or to be required from, Installed Masters generally, and that no further Degree in Masonry is being conferred, Lodges are permitted to perform the Ceremony. (34)
In Conclusion
An adequate concluding paragraph could present two remarks. First, that a strict chronology of the Installation Ceremony is not at all easy to present because its evolution did not proceed at the same rate in the different parts of the Masonic world, and because the evolutionary transition was gradual, frequently without definite lines of demarcation between stages. Secondly, as Freemasonry is so protean, so changeable, it behooves all dedicated Brethren to acquire such knowledge of its History as will permit them, when a change is advocated, to decide intelligently, and not be swayed emotionally.
REFERENCES
1. Harry Carr, A.Q.C. 71 (1958). p. 97.
2. Terence O. Haunch, Collected Prestonian Lectures, Vol. II (Lewis Masonic, London. 1983), p. 155
3. Harry Carr, World of Freemasonry (Lewis Masonic, London, 1984). p. 384.
4. Harry Carr, Freemason at Work, (London, 1976). p. 284.
5. Bernard E. Jones, Freemasons' Guide and Compendium, (Harrap & Co., London, 1961), pp. 247-248.
6. Harry Carr, World of Freemasonry (Lewis Masonic, London, 1984), p. 385.
7. Norman B. Spencer. A.Q.C. 72 (1959), pp. 100-101.
8. R.E. Parkinson, A.Q.C. 72 (1959), p. 119.
9. Norman B. Spencer, A.Q.C. 70 (1957) p 47
10. Eric Ward, A.Q.C. 71 (1958), p. 86.
11. Norman B. Spencer, A.Q.C. 72 (1959), p. 100.
12. N.B. Spencer. ditto, p. 106.
13. Bernard E. Jones, A.Q.C. 70 (1957), p. 34.
14. Harry Carr, A.Q.C. 70 (1957), p. 43.
15. Norman Rogers, A.Q.C. 72 (1959), p. 115.
16. Cyril N. Batham, 1981 Prestonian Lecture (London, 1981), pp. 47, 63.
17. E. Ward, ditto, p. 90.
18. N.B. Spencer, ditto, p. 102.
19. N.B. Spencer, ditto, p. 121.
20. Lionel Vibelt. Collected Prestonian Lectures 1925-1960 (Q.C.L., London, 1965), p. 32.
21. James H. Weir, A.Q.C. 89 (1976), p. 52.
22. Harry Carr, World of Freemasonry (Lewis Masonic, London, 1984), p. 396.
23. Howard M. Potts, American Lodge of Research, Vol. IX. No. 1 p. 39.
24. Eric Ward, A.Q.C. 72 (1959), p. 114.
25. Alex Home, A.Q.C. 89 (1976), p. 49.
26. Harry Carr, World of Freemasonry (Lewis Masonic, London, 1984), p. 390
27. Richard Hall, Masonic Square, Vol. X. March 1984, p. 34.
28. Harry Carr, World of Freemasonry (Lewis Masonic, London, 1984), pp. 405- 406
29. Holland Lodge Minutes, Typescript, p 44
30. N.S Barrat & J.F. Sachse, Freemasonry in Pennsylvania 1727-1907 (Philadelphia, 1908), Vol. III, p. 19.
31. Dwight L. Smith, Goodly Heritage (Grand Lodge of Indiana, 1968), pp. 50, 51
32. Harry Carr, A.Q.C. 89 (1976), p. 57.
33. Eric Ward, A.Q.C. 71 (1958), p. 101.
34. The Revised English Ritual (Fenrose Ltd., Tunbridge Wells, England, 3rd. ed., 1974), pp. 205-206.
----o----
by John E. Foster, MPS
The history of Masonic codes and ciphers is a long and not always creditable one. There are still American Grand Lodges who do not permit the existence of any coded ritual, and make the mere possession of one a Masonic offense. Whether or not these strictures have any practical effect is open to question, and most of the Grand Lodges in the United States have long since followed the example of the mother Grand Lodge, the United Grand Lodge of England, in permitting or authorizing some form of mnemonics in which more or less of the ritual is coded, depending on the view of that Grand Lodge as to what is secret within the meaning of the several Masonic obligations. What is true in Grand Lodges is also true in Grand Royal Arch Chapters, and it is one of these coded rituals which was prepared during the early 1860's which bears the thought-provoking title of "Hindoo Theology."
The practice of committing the Masonic rituals to written form can be traced as far back as 1696, the generally accepted date for a manuscript known as The Edinburgh Register House MS. That manuscript appears to have been prepared for private use, not for publication, and its authenticity is established by a fragment of the same ritual wording contained in the minute book of the Lodge of Haughfoot, a small town in Scotland, which can be dated to 1702. Subsequent to the formation of the first Grand Lodge, that of England, in 1717, and the publication of the first exposures of the ritual in printed form, the writing down of the ritual or the catechisms was generally frowned upon and officially prohibited. This did not stop individual Masons and Lodges from preparing manuscripts for their own use, a practice still being followed in England and Scotland, where there is no official Ritual prescribed by the Grand Lodges. Small wonder, then, that the practice should follow the Fraternity to the colonies, and become well established in spite of all the rules and regulations adopted by the various Grand Lodges in the United States.
As early as 1783, Connecticut Masons were concerned with the lack of uniformity in the work, and even though the Grand Lodge had not been perfected, the Convention held in New Haven appointed Wo. Br. Jonathan Heart, a Past Master of the American Union Lodge which had travelled with the Continental Army, to act as a visiting lecturer to endeavor to procure such uniformity. In Connecticut this proved then and has remained ever since an impossible task, as far as the Lodges are concerned, although the Grand Lodge has made many vain attempts to enforce its will and pleasure. At the Grand Lodge Communication of 1864, a Standard Work was adopted and a Grand Lecturer appointed, an office which lasted for some ten years and then vanished from the scene, along with any hopes of producing uniformity in the work. The work adopted in 1864 was that of Joseph Smith Webb, as inculcated by Jeremy Ladd Cross during his activities in Connecticut between 1818 and 1824, when he also served as Grand Lecturer for the Grand Lodge, and managed to have his Monitor adopted as official. There were still many brothers in responsible positions in 1864 who had learned their work under the tutelage of Cross, and others who had learned first-hand from these brothers who were in a position to know "the true Webb work." Among these was one of the outstanding ritualists in Connecticut, James Lewis Gould.
James L. Gould was born in Easton, Connecticut, a Town bordering Bridgeport, in 1830. His parents moved to Bridgeport when he was three, and there he resided for most of his life. An unfortunate accident at the age of seven left him with only one eye, but he did not allow this handicap to hinder his career. He graduated from Yale University in 1851, and then pursued a legal career, being admitted to the bar in 1853. In 1866 he changed careers, and became part owner and editor of the Daily and Weekly Farmer, a Bridgeport newspaper. He remained active in political life, and served as Judge of Probate for four years, a member of the City Council, and recorder of the City Court. He joined the Masonic Fraternity upon his 21st birthday, and was raised in St. John's Lodge No. 3 in December 1851, exalted in Jerusalem Chapter No. 13, R.A.M., in February 1852, received in greeted in Jerusalem Council No. 16 R.&S.M., and knighted in Hamilton Commandery No. 5, K.T. He joined the Scottish Rite in the Valley of Bridgeport, and received the 33rd Degree. An ardent Mason, he served his Lodge as Master in 1870, was High Priest of the Chapter from 1861 to 1864, Thrice lllustrious Master of the Council in 1866 and 1867, and Eminent Commander of the Commandery in 1875. On the state level, he was appointed to the Grand Lodge line in 1865, even before being Master of his Lodge, and served as Grand Master for the year 1871/72. He served as Grand High Priest from 1867 to 1869, and as Most Puissant Grand Master in 1865-66. On the national level he served as General Grand Royal Arch Captain, and as Chairman of the Ritual Committee of the General Grand Chapter. He died in Norwich, Connecticut, in 1909, having been completely blind for the last thirty years of his life.
Returning to Gould's activities in Royal Arch Masonry, it will be necessary to comment on the history of Jerusalem Chapter No. 13, where he was exalted, which he served as High Priest, and of which he was the first member to become Grand High Priest of Connecticut. Jerusalem Chapter was constituted on November 22, 1813, with the Rev. Ashbel Baldwin as High Priest. Matthias Nicoll as King, Joel Jones as Scribe, Matthew Talcott as Secretary, Ransom Beach as Royal Arch Captain, and Joseph P. Shelton as Treasurer. For the first few years, the Chapter met alternately in Stratford and Bridgeport, adjoining communities, drawing membership from St. John's Lodge No. 3. St. John's Lodge No. 8, and Lafayette Lodge No. 72, then located in nearby Fairfield. It was a very active Chapter until the anti-Masonic period, when it forfeited its charter in 1858, not to be reconstituted until 1847, just five years before Gould joined it. During this early period, the Chapter was visited no less than nine times by Jeremy Ladd Cross between 1818 and 1824. The influence of Cross is evident from the minutes, for at the next annual election after his first visit in 1818, the Chapter for the first time adopted the officer titles required for a Chapter following the Webb work. Previously they had used the officer titles in use from the formation of the first chartered Chapter in Connecticut, Hiram No. 1 located in Newtown, which had been constituted in 1791 by a so-called Washington Grand Chapter in New York City.
When the Chapter was reconstituted in 1847, five of the officers had been active members during the period when Cross had visited and instructed the Chapter, and it is reasonable to assume that they were in possession of the Webb work as taught by Cross as Grand Lecturer. It is also reasonable to assume that Gould learned his own work from the instructive tongues of these Companions. When he decided that there should be some effort to perpetuate what he considered to be the correct work, he lost no time in setting to work. We can not be sure when the preparation began, but it is safe to say that it coincided with his occupancy of the East in Jerusalem Chapter. As a collaborator, he chose a Companion from Jersey City, New Jersey, John Sheville. At least part of the results of this collaboration is a matter of public record for the first edition of The Manual of the Chapter - was published in 1864, and indicates Sheville to be the Grand High Priest of New Jersey and Gould the Grand King of Connecticut. Gould was elected Grand High Priest of Connecticut in 1867, the year in which he published an expanded version of the original Manual of the Chapter, entitled Guide to the Royal Arch Chapter. Which brings us to Hindoo Theology.
In 1917, Comp. Henry S. Haines, Past Grand High Priest and Grand Lecturer of New Jersey, in his dual capacity as Reviewer of the Proceedings of other Grand Jurisdictions, included in his Review for that year the following, which is the most detailed explanation of the Hindoo Theology which has yet been found:
"Under Connecticut are find an allusion to the Ritual used in that Jurisdiction and in New Jersey with which a want of acquaintance is expressed, and the intimation is given that the work of the General Grand Chapter might be properly substituted therefor. To both of these a ready answer can be given. The Gould-Sheviile Ritual is almost literally the text of that which was promulgated by Thomas Smith Webb, the acknowledged author of our American system of Masonic liturgies, and was adopted by a number of the States, in many of which Ritual tinkers have succeeded in loosening their moorings and sending them adrift upon the seas of perpetual uncertainty and unrest. This work was communicated to the present writer by Companion Gould himself, and has not undergone a syllable of change in the three-score years of its use in New Jersey."
A detailed examination of the Hindoo Theology itself indicates that it was prepared contemporaneously with the Manual of the Chapter, since it omits all the Monitorial Work and gives instead page references to the Manual. While both Gould and Sheville share the credit, it would appear from M.E. Comp. Haines' comment that Gould was the prime mover. What the original Hindoo Theology looked like is somewhat uncertain, but this author has a copy printed in 1914 from the original plates which were at that time in the possession of Comp. Haines, and had by him been presented to the Grand Chapter of New Jersey. It is a small booklet, bound in red imitation leather, consisting of 75 paces of a cipher which would have been illegible to any but a proficient Royal Arch Mason. How illegible? Consider the order given by the High Priest to the Royal Arch Captain to see that the Chapter is duly guarded "Dtp; ti T t I aotaa Circle o Missionaries atthda.'' And that is a rather simple example, for many lines have inserted words which are no part of the text, but simple added to complicate the cipher. All words are indicated by a single initial letter. An Iowa Companion noted, with obvious understatement . "The 'Hindoo Theology' was, however, found to be rather difficult reading." However difficult to ready it embodied the Connecticut ritual and was exemplified under Gould's direction at a special convocation of the Grand Chapter on December 14, 1864, and has remained in use, with some modifications, ever since.
The demand for ritual uniformity was a strong influence in all the Masonic jurisdictions throughout the mid-1800's, although seldom would any two jurisdictions agree as to what was the "true" work. At the same time, many of the leaders of the Fraternity were unalterably opposed to any form of cipher, an obvious prerequisite if uniformity were to be attained. Hindoo Theology, however, perhaps because it was so illegible that it awakened less opposition as a cipher, had a considerable vogue. In addition to Connecticut and New Jersey, it was adopted by Vermont, and as far afield as Illinois and lowa. It was not always acknowledged by a Grand Chapter that it was using a cipher ritual, and that was true in Connecticut, even though the Hindoo Theology was a Connecticut product. We can trace its use by examining the Correspondence Reviews published in the Proceedings of the Grand Chapter of Connecticut. The first reference is contained in the 1872 Review, prepared by PGHP Luke A. Lockwood, who served the Grand Chapter as Grand High Priest in 1866-67. Lockwood quotes the Nova Scotia reviews of Illinois: "The mode of disseminating the work adopted by Illinois seemed to the Grand High Priest to require the aid of a ‘missionary' skilled in theology and so forth to enable the 'Hindoos' to decipher the mysterious characters, and the Grand Chapter concurred. This is the way to secure conformity." From later references in the Connecticut Review, it appears that Hindoo Theology was translated by Illinois into a new cipher, and called The History of the Black Hawk War. The Connecticut reviewer from 1873 through 1908 was M.E. Comp. John Barlow, an outspoken opponent of cipher rituals, who never conceded that Connecticut was in fact using one, although he must have known of Gould's work, since he succeeded him as Grand High Priest in 1869. He quotes the Wisconsin reviewer in his 1895 Review as follows: "We do not quite understand what the lowa Chapters have to do with Hindoo Theology, but we find that their edition is exhausted and a new one needed." Barlow then adds "We occasionally see one in Connecticut, but there is too much Hindoo for the average Companion to read and he looks for something more plain." Later in the same Review he quotes a rebuttal by the lowa reviewer: "... we exceedingly regret your lack of knowledge of the intimate relations existing between Hindoo Theology and the Royal Arch ritual. Our most astute linguists and theologians in Iowa find them almost identical.'' Although disapproving the practice himself. Barlow never hesitated to quote those in favor of a cipher ritual. For example, in his 1898 Review, he quotes the Kentucky reviewer:
"The great founder of the American Capitular system used written Rituals, and permitted his pupils to do so, when one talks about the transmission of the ritual of any branch of Masonry from mouth to ear from the days of Webb, just as he prepared and taught it, is in our judgement, talking worse than nonsense. The man has never lived who can remember every word just as it was communicated to him. The mouth to ear theory is very fine, but the practice is another thing."
And in his 1902 Review, he quotes the Kansas reviewer who had noted the strict position of Pennsylvania, and then said: "We work on the same principle in Grand Lodge in Kansas, so far as cypher rituals are concerned, and yet nearly every lodge worker has his private cypher, more or less correct, purchased from some commercial trafficker in rituals, and we are skeptical enough to believe that the same state of affairs exists in Pennsylvania and the country over. How much better for a Grand Body to open its eyes to the necessary evil, and control it by furnishing a correct cypher to its workers under proper restrictions, thus driving out dangerous and incorrect works and the commercial dealers therein." Barlow adds, "While we do not favor cypher rituals, we are forced to acknowledge there is much in his remarks."
Following the death of M.E. Comp. Barlow, Connecticut had a new reviewer, M.E. Comp. George A. Kies. who had been Grand High Priest in 1908/09, and was to become Grand Secretary in 1917, as well as reviewer positions which he retained until his death in 1936. Comp. Kies had none of Barlow's reticence in admitting that Connecticut used the Hindoo Theology as its official ritual. In 1911 he admitted that "we use the 'Hindoo'." In 1915, the Grand High Priest of Connecticut, M.E. Comp. Horace W. Eddy, advised the Grand Chapter that he had ordered one hundred copies of the Hindoo Theology from the Grand Chapter of New Jersey, which had just reprinted it. Upon his recommendation, it was voted that one copy be supplied to each Chapter. For some reason this was not done, as in 1922 the Grand High Priest. M.E. Comp. Edgar B. Ellis, again recommended that that recommendation be carried out. Comp. Ellis was also a member of Jerusalem Chapter No. 13, and just as interested in ritual as Comp. Gould had been. Following his term as Grand High Priest, he was to serve for many years as Chairman of the Ritual Committee, and eventually, recognising the impossibility of forcing the Chapters to use the Hindoo Theology as the official cipher ritual, succeeded in devising a new cipher ritual which was finally issued in 1928. Although the cipher was different, the content was exactly the same, for, as Comp. Kies had specified in his 1926 Review, the work adopted by the Grand Chapter of Connecticut in 1864 "was embodied by the late Past Grand High Priest James L. Gould in a printed cipher entitled 'H(indoo) T(heology).' Hence, the latter booklet contains our standard ritual, which so far as we know has never been abrogated."
To sum up our knowledge of Hindoo Theology it may be accepted as the Webb ritual work, communicated by him to Jeremy Ladd Cross in 1816, and passed on by Cross to several Chapters in Connecticut between 1818 and 1824, and more particularly to Jerusalem Chapter No. 13 in Bridgeport, where it was absorbed by James L. Gould, and by him committed to cipher, in partnership with John Sheville of New Jersey, and printed as the Hindoo Theology, which incorporated by reference the Manual of the Chapter as the monitorial part of the work. It is still the Official Ritual of Connecticut, although translated into a different cipher in 1928, and subsequently, with minor changes and major deletions to shorten it, republished in 1954.
Note: Information for this paper has been primarily obtained from the Correspondence Reviews printed in the Proceedings of the Grand Chapter of Royal Arch Masons of Connecticut. Additional biographical details have been obtained from material from the pen of R.W. Bro. and Comp. James R. Case, Grand Historian of Connecticut, and from the Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Connecticut. Details concerning Jerusalem Chapter No. 13 have been derived from an examination of its original minutes. The author is proud to be a member of that Chapter, and the seventh of its members to have served the Grand Chapter as Grand High Priest. As befits a Chapter which has had for members such proficient ritualists as James L. Gould, Edgar B. Ellis and Gerald D. Huenerberg, each of whom served as Grand High Priest, it still exemplifies the best degree work in Connecticut.
----o----
TRIVIA
"The nicest thing about the promise of Spring is that sooner or later she'll have to keep it.'
- Mark Deltaire
"Plan ahead - it wasn't raining when Noah built the Ark."
- General Futures Corp.
"lt isn't that I'm afraid to die, I just don't want to be there when it happens."
- Woody Allen
----o----
by Allen E. Roberts, FPS
Some leading Methodists in England are "investigating" the "Christian'' and his relationship with Freemasonry. They are "bothered'' by ''the syncretistic nature of Masonry." The favorite criticism of the anti Masons. "the exclusion of Jesus Christ from Masonic thinking,'' is also claimed. It doesn't take any stretch of the imagination to know the Craft would be strongly accused of usurping the role of the church if Jesus was included in the ritual. It's good to know the Church of England isn't among the many anti-Masonic Christians.''
A Virginia Methodist minister, Lansing B. Harmon. Jr., PG Chaplain, writes in The Indiana Freemason: "The tyrant does not fear the forces of a weak religion but it does fear the strength of a Fraternity dedicated to the Brotherhood of Man under the Fatherhood of God. The first martyrs in Nazi Germany were not our Jewish brethren, nor the stately robed priest, but they were the men who were known to be members of the Masonic Order...l am disturbed today by the forces that oppose Freemasonry. I know of religious groups that forbid their followers to become a part of our Fraternity. I know of clergymen who are vocal in private conversation and from the sacred pulpit in condemning Freemasonry. It is hard for me, as a clergyman, to understand why anyone who professes faith in the best would be so violently opposed to any group, especially Freemasons, who believe in the best…l fear for the future of the church. They may not know it, but they are joining forces with the real enemies of faith and freedom and in that sense are giving comfort to the enemy in their stupidity." AMEN!
Is Freemasonry coming under a more organized attack than ever before? I fear it is. More frequently than ever before I learn of "ministers" refusing to permit Freemasons to enter their "churches to escort the body of a deceased Brother to the cemetery. A distraught Mason told me of a "minister" who refused to conduct the funeral for one of his parishioners until his family renounced Freemasonry. Another, after refusing to let members of the Lodge of a deceased Brother into his "church," refused to go to the cemetery because Masonic funeral rites were to be conducted.
A Senior Warden gave up his office shortIy after joining a fundamentalist sect. A Past Grand High Priest and long-time Grand Lecturer renounced Freemasonry when he became "born again" in another sect. If a Mason with his learned in background in Freemasonry can fall for this anti-Masonic trash, can we expect less knowledgeable Masons to withstand this onslaught? Are the fears of many of us without foundation?
A well-known Past Grand Master has been feuding with his church in recent years. It has become more and more anti Masonic. He has proudly pointed to the support this denomination has always received from its members who are Freemasons. But the hierarchy brushes this aside.
A Masonic service organization writes: "Lately, we have been furnished with copies of several anti-Masonic tracts accompanied by the usual question of 'What can we do about it?' The best answer we can give our opponents is to conduct ourselves properly as individuals and as an organization. By doing so we tell them: 'Judge us by the work we do and not by what you think are our secret aims or philosophy.' "BUT, is this enough? Do our opponents judge us by our actions? Of course not. Its the lies they spread to the uninitiated that cause the harm.
Is it wise to continue to "turn the other cheek?''
The Editor of The New Zealand Freemason notes: "In the Western World today every organization is being subjected to close and critical scrutiny and it is in our own interests that Freemasonry should be seen for what it is - 'a force for good with nothing to be ashamed of and much in which we can take pride. All progressive business houses, corporations, Government Departments, airlines, the Armed Forces - even the Churches - have a positive approach to public relations, a programme for supplying the news media, and people to carry out this work. The few who do not, run the risk of being either forgotten, or misunderstood." His editorial is a plea for "a positie approach to good public relations."
The Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of North Dakota took note of a too prevalent sign of the times: "After an absence of 10 years a Grand Lodge Communication was held in the Minot area, one would expect to see a large turnout of Brethren from the northwestern part of the State. This was not the case. The week before, Eastern Star had between 400 and 500 people attending their Grand Session in Minot. We had a registration count of 203 Brethren in Minot. Somehow the members of our Fraternity are going to have to get their priorities straightened out, if...Lodge Masonry is going to survive in North Dakota. I am sure that 203 registered at a Shrine Ceremonial would be considered a disaster. The Appendant Bodies will not survive if we do not survive. Everyone keeps talking about membership and its importance to our organization. It is high time that we stop talking and start doing something about it.''
Here's an interesting tidbit from Grand Lodge Bulletin of Alberta: "Edward Vll, as Prince of Wales was Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England and when his mother, Queen Victoria expressed concern that the ‘secret’ nature of our order could result in subversive activities he replied, 'Madam there are no more loyal subjects of our realm than the Brethren of the Masonic Order, at each and every meeting they honour a toast to you and your crown, ‘The Queen decreed that from that day forward the Masonic Order had the right to couple its name with that of the Sovereign when preparing this loyal toast, a privilege never before or since granted to any other organization.' Every Grand Lodge and Grand Chapter in the Provinces adopts a resolution of loyalty at the beginning of every annual meeting.
It was with regret we learned (and can now state) that Joan E. Behrens’ excellent writings will no longer grace the pages of Knight Templar. She was long an editorial assistant, and in recent months its Editor . May she continue to be successful in all her future endeavors. She has been living proof of my claim that their are several ladies who know more about the Craft than do 95% of our Master Masons. May God bless them. I fully realize we have many Freemasons of high rank who will never acknowledge the contributions made by the fair sex, but I’ll never be one of them. It has been my pleasure to have known (and still know) several of them.
The New Mexico Freemason records the words of the new Grand Master B. Ray Bonar. He has promised to work toward better leadership and in making Freemasonry more visible. He notes: "There are only two states in which Freemasonry can exist: Progressive or Regressive. Progress occurs when courageous skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better." The new editor, Dick Corn, quotes Woodrow Wilson: "If you want to make enemies, try to change something." He adds: "How many times have you heard the trite phrase. 'We’ve always done it this way, Why change now?' Then we go on and stagnate.'' "Freemasonry. A Way of Life'' is going to be published as a newspaper insert. "A Masonic Awareness Parade" was held in Albuquerque in June. Visibility in New Mexico is on the march.
Harry S. Truman was born 100 years ago. May 8, 1884. Of him, General and Brother Donald Dawson said: "Bro. Harry S. Truman did more than anyone else in letting Freemasonry be known in this country." Absolutely true! Without detracting from George Washington who almost single handed brought the United States of America into existence, we must place Truman at the top of the Masonic immortals. Never did he hesitate to promote Freemasonry. Never did he consider the Craft beneath his dignity even while he served as President of the country. Biographies of Truman cover little, if anything, of his Masonic work. This should be rectified. There is an immediate need for such a book - one that will be an inspiration for this and future generations of Freemasons.
The Grand Lodge Bulletin of lowa noted the Grand Lodge laid the cornerstone of a "Ronald McDonald House'' on the campus of the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics in lowa City. These houses are designed to provide living quarters for parents while their children are receiving medical treatment. The Grand Secretary, Tom Eggleston, informed me that because of the efforts of one man in one Lodge the Masons of lowa contributed $30,000 toward this project. Another example of what one Lodge can accomplish. And many lowa Lodges have accepted the challenge to "GO FOR IT!'' This is a program of self improvement. It is designed to help the lodges in this jurisdiction recognize their weaknesses and their strong points and to strengthen themselves as they strive to GO FOR lT!''
The Virginia Craftsmen, a traveling Masonic Degree Team from Virginia that was organized in 1962 has extolled the virtues of the Freemasonry practiced by the Masons who wore the blue and gray during the War Between the States. It has asked the Masons of today to practice the Brotherly Love shown by former enemies on the field of battle. Now several Civil War buffs have organized the "39th Regiment" degree team in Massachusetts to do much the same. While the uniforms of the Craftsmen are a replica of the Confederate cavalry the 39th's are varied and replicas of Union troops. The goals of both appear to be much the same: to emphasize Brotherhood in action and to promote Freemasonry.